s/o Duggar - Christian deception, Coronavirus, dominionism, insurrection, etc

[kbutton]

1 hour ago, Xahm said:

Trigger, miscarriage

The youth pastor (Calvinist) 

The traditional Calvinists (as opposed to the neo-Calvinists) I know tend to believe that they don't know--that babies are predestined just as everyone else is.

14 minutes ago, Katy said:

I think the point was they don’t believe in an age of accountability?

That's my impression as well.

However, I don't believe in an age of accountability per se, but I do believe that babies, people who cannot understand, etc. go to heaven via other hints in scripture. I've heard exactly ONE good exposition on this idea that didn't rely on the concept of age of accountability. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by kbutton
wording

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Xahm said:

The youth pastor (Calvinist) when I was a teen bragged to us about how he was so honest that when a woman who was sobbing about having just lost another child through miscarriage asked him about seeing her baby in heaven, he told her she wouldn't because her baby was in hell. 

That is disgusting. I wonder if he believes King David is in hell as well:

Then David's servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

[kbutton]

12 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

David’s son with Bathsheba. 

Yes, the person giving their case for it based it on this and several other passages (many about the character of God). 

[J-rap]

This is probably taking things a little different direction, but I think it's still relevant...

I'm not sure how much this has changed over the years, but it seems like the "now-known-as-evangelical" branch of Christianity has become nothing more than a club, and you have to hold certain correct beliefs and do everything just so in order to be accepted.  And once you say the magic words "I believe in Jesus" etc., then BINGO, you're in the club!

I think where people become confused is when they think Jesus was saying "Join the ME club!"  Rather, I think what he was trying to tell people over and over again was "Follow me and see God and what true agape love is, and do likewise."  And we're called to spread that kingdom here and now, on earth.  (The kingdom of loving one another in a Christ-like way.)

I think the shock for some Christians is that this "kingdom" -- God's hope for us, will be spread by both Christians and non-Christians alike.  I think a lot of non-Christians understand that kind of unselfish, other-oriented love even more easily than Christians because they're not as caught up in false Christian teachings.  Of course as a Christian, I still believe Christ is in it either way, and believe that someday everyone will know that...  But only God knows how these things will play out in individual lives;  He knows our unique hearts and brains and experiences well and he is constantly at work in each of us, pulling us toward him.  But if all we ever learn in this lifetime is how to be compassionate toward others, especially toward those who are shunned or typically ignored or who simply aren't like us, then we have come very close to knowing God's heart.

This is why my pastor is known as a heretic in some circles ☺️, but it's why I and a lot of others have stuck with it.  Even Jesus himself eventually began saying, when asked what was most important, to just love your neighbor.  A pastor I listened to recently interprets that by saying that Jesus dropped the "Love God" as the first part of that answer, because we humans are apt to then just love God but forget to love our neighbor, and then we're missing the whole point.  But if we truly love our neighbor well (even those we consider our enemies), then we've understood God's heart.  

(I think loving our enemy is hard to understand sometimes... Because as mere humans we don't always feel a great love toward our enemy!  But we can still try and understand them and realize that they are who they are through how their lives have played out, etc.  That doesn't turn their "wrong" into "right," but we can be assured that God loves them just as much as He loves us.)

 

 

[ktgrok]

A priest I like said that if we are asking if we are saved, we are asking the wrong question. That our focus should be on what we are doing to help others, not on ourselves, or we have missed the whole point. 

[Pam in CT]

re capacity of religion to focus attention toward compassion and care

44 minutes ago, J-rap said:

This is probably taking things a little different direction, but I think it's still relevant...

I'm not sure how much this has changed over the years, but it seems like the "now-known-as-evangelical" branch of Christianity has become nothing more than a club, and you have to hold certain correct beliefs and do everything just so in order to be accepted.  And once you say the magic words "I believe in Jesus" etc., then BINGO, you're in the club!

I think where people become confused is when they think Jesus was saying "Join the ME club!"  Rather, I think what he was trying to tell people over and over again was "Follow me and see God and what true agape love is, and do likewise."  And we're called to spread that kingdom here and now, on earth.  (The kingdom of loving one another in a Christ-like way.)

I think the shock for some Christians is that this "kingdom" -- God's hope for us, will be spread by both Christians and non-Christians alike.  I think a lot of non-Christians understand that kind of unselfish, other-oriented love even more easily than Christians because they're not as caught up in false Christian teachings.  Of course as a Christian, I still believe Christ is in it either way, and believe that someday everyone will know that...  But only God knows how these things will play out in individual lives;  He knows our unique hearts and brains and experiences well and he is constantly at work in each of us, pulling us toward him.  But if all we ever learn in this lifetime is how to be compassionate toward others, especially toward those who are shunned or typically ignored or who simply aren't like us, then we have come very close to knowing God's heart.

This is why my pastor is known as a heretic in some circles ☺️, but it's why I and a lot of others have stuck with it.  Even Jesus himself eventually began saying, when asked what was most important, to just love your neighbor.  A pastor I listened to recently interprets that by saying that Jesus dropped the "Love God" as the first part of that answer, because we humans are apt to then just love God but forget to love our neighbor, and then we're missing the whole point.  But if we truly love our neighbor well (even those we consider our enemies), then we've understood God's heart.  

(I think loving our enemy is hard to understand sometimes... Because as mere humans we don't always feel a great love toward our enemy!  But we can still try and understand them and realize that they are who they are through how their lives have played out, etc.  That doesn't turn their "wrong" into "right," but we can be assured that God loves them just as much as He loves us.)

 

 

OK @J-rap I had already made a mental note to find time to select a Greg BOYD book before this, but now I am actively searching. Debating between God of the Possible and Inspired Imperfection - have a recommendation for me?

Karen Armstrong, who first trained and served as a nun before going on a long journey into religious historian, littered with books on all the major faith traditions, returns repeatedly to the idea that religion has both the capacity to call us to our best selves, and also to cloak and give justification to our worst selves: and it is up to us to discern the difference.  And the criteria for that discernment, she argues, is compassion.

 

 

 

PS wish you were in my interfaith book group!

[Katy]

10 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

A priest I like said that if we are asking if we are saved, we are asking the wrong question. That our focus should be on what we are doing to help others, not on ourselves, or we have missed the whole point. 

Maybe it's the protestant in me, but I disagree.  Jesus talked about Hell more often than he spoke about heaven.  The general context was not being selfish, but since the whole point of the gospel is the good news, I find it extremely incongruous to say it's missing the point to discuss the afterlife.

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, J-rap said:

This is probably taking things a little different direction, but I think it's still relevant...

I'm not sure how much this has changed over the years, but it seems like the "now-known-as-evangelical" branch of Christianity has become nothing more than a club, and you have to hold certain correct beliefs and do everything just so in order to be accepted.  And once you say the magic words "I believe in Jesus" etc., then BINGO, you're in the club!

I think where people become confused is when they think Jesus was saying "Join the ME club!"  Rather, I think what he was trying to tell people over and over again was "Follow me and see God and what true agape love is, and do likewise."  And we're called to spread that kingdom here and now, on earth.  (The kingdom of loving one another in a Christ-like way.)

I think the shock for some Christians is that this "kingdom" -- God's hope for us, will be spread by both Christians and non-Christians alike.  I think a lot of non-Christians understand that kind of unselfish, other-oriented love even more easily than Christians because they're not as caught up in false Christian teachings.  Of course as a Christian, I still believe Christ is in it either way, and believe that someday everyone will know that...  But only God knows how these things will play out in individual lives;  He knows our unique hearts and brains and experiences well and he is constantly at work in each of us, pulling us toward him.  But if all we ever learn in this lifetime is how to be compassionate toward others, especially toward those who are shunned or typically ignored or who simply aren't like us, then we have come very close to knowing God's heart.

This is why my pastor is known as a heretic in some circles ☺️, but it's why I and a lot of others have stuck with it.  Even Jesus himself eventually began saying, when asked what was most important, to just love your neighbor.  A pastor I listened to recently interprets that by saying that Jesus dropped the "Love God" as the first part of that answer, because we humans are apt to then just love God but forget to love our neighbor, and then we're missing the whole point.  But if we truly love our neighbor well (even those we consider our enemies), then we've understood God's heart.  

(I think loving our enemy is hard to understand sometimes... Because as mere humans we don't always feel a great love toward our enemy!  But we can still try and understand them and realize that they are who they are through how their lives have played out, etc.  That doesn't turn their "wrong" into "right," but we can be assured that God loves them just as much as He loves us.)

 

 

Have you read the book Gentle and Lowly by Dane Ortland? It’s amazing - so much we don’t very often hear today. The premise is that the tie Jesus describes Himself, it is as “gentle and lowly at heart” and that in Him we find rest for our “weary souls.” 

[TechWife]

42 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re capacity of religion to focus attention toward compassion and care

OK @J-rap I had already made a mental note to find time to select a Greg BOYD book before this, but now I am actively searching. Debating between God of the Possible and Inspired Imperfection - have a recommendation for me?

Karen Armstrong, who first trained and served as a nun before going on a long journey into religious historian, littered with books on all the major faith traditions, returns repeatedly to the idea that religion has both the capacity to call us to our best selves, and also to cloak and give justification to our worst selves: and it is up to us to discern the difference.  And the criteria for that discernment, she argues, is compassion.

 

 

 

PS wish you were in my interfaith book group!

Karen Armstrong sounds like someone I’d like to learn from. Any book recommendations for me? 

[chiguirre]

5 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Karen Armstrong sounds like someone I’d like to learn from. Any book recommendations for me? 

Her most famous book is A History of God.

[Garga]

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Years ago, I went to a training at work conducted by a social worker. She discussed the need to discern what your motivation is when you are trying to help someone. I'm not a social worker but she was addressing social workers whose job it is to help patients with a chronic life-threatening condition. She said that if helping another person makes you feel good then there's an element of it that is not about the patient. This can set up the relationship to be one where there could be unethical behavior. Obviously it's impossible for human beings to turn off their emotions and keep themselves from feeling good when they help someone. That's a natural emotional reaction. But her point was that we have to cognizant of our own motivations and not see the relationship as completely one-sided. 

I’ve heard this sort of thing before, to check your motivations. I’ve heard it implied that if you’re helping people so that you feel good, then your motivation might not be a good one.

I’ve heard it in regards to adoption as well. People want children and that’s the number one reason they adopt, but they also want to rescue someone and feel good about it. When I’ve heard it talked about, it was presented as a negative (to want to rescue someone.)

 

But I have always thought it was a good thing to feel good about helping others. And I thought it was good to want to rescue someone else.

Did the social worker explain why it’s a bad/selfish thing to feel good about helping others? Is there a nuance I’m missing?

Edited May 14, 2021 by Garga

[Jaybee]

Just now, Seasider too said:

A friend recently gave me this book as a gift. Now I am even more eager to read it!

I found it rich and deep, but not an easy read, just so you are prepared. It's not a book that you sit down and read right through. It's more a chapter-a-day kind of book.

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, Garga said:

I’ve heard this sort of thing before, to check your motivations. I’ve heard it implied that if you’re helping people so that you feel good, then your motivation might not be a good one.

I’ve heard it in regards to adoption as well. People want children and that’s the number one reason they adopt, but they also want to rescue someone and feel good about it. When I’ve heard it talked about, it was presented as a negative (to want to rescue someone.)

 

But I have always thought it was a good thing to feel good about helping others. And I thought it was good to want to rescue someone else.

Did the social worker explain why it’s a bad/selfish thing to feel good about helping others? Is there a nuance I’m missing?

Feeling good when helping seems designed to get us to help more? A very pro-social adaptation in humans?

Helping when miserable about it is NOT motivating. 

 

[GailV]

31 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Feeling good when helping seems designed to get us to help more? A very pro-social adaptation in humans?

Helping when miserable about it is NOT motivating. 

 

I suspect the point wasn't to help while miserable, but to have equanimity. Not grasping for the "feel good" moment, not turning away from the "feel bad" moment -- simply to get on with the job.

Having clarity about what you're feeling is usually a good thing, and a good skill to have.  It's okay to pat yourself on the back some if you're aware that you're doing it. 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

4 hours ago, Garga said:

I’ve heard it in regards to adoption as well. People want children and that’s the number one reason they adopt, but they also want to rescue someone and feel good about it. When I’ve heard it talked about, it was presented as a negative (to want to rescue someone.)

Bio and adoptive parent here (international.) Yes, if motivation for adoption is articulated as wanting to rescue someone, it's a huge red flag and an ethical  adoption agency will spend time getting to the bottom of that.  Our agency has a list of non-profits that provide direct aid to families around the world in desperate situations that help keep children in need stay with one or more of their parents or family members. If someone comes in talking about wanting to rescue children from bad situations, they're given that list and encouraged to financially donate to them.

Wanting to parent for a couple of decades hands on in a permanent, lifetime relationship is completely different than wanting to rescue a kid from a bad situation. The relationship dynamic is completely different for the people falling into those two very different camps.  Adult adoptee experience tells us rescuers are prone to making it about themselves at some level, expecting appreciation for it, and resenting adoptees who don't provide some sort of emotional payback related to being rescued. 

People who want to parent are motivated to engage in the act of parenting for a lifetime whether they're adopting or producing biological children by whatever means.

[Garga]

3 hours ago, GailV said:

I suspect the point wasn't to help while miserable, but to have equanimity. Not grasping for the "feel good" moment, not turning away from the "feel bad" moment -- simply to get on with the job.

Having clarity about what you're feeling is usually a good thing, and a good skill to have.  It's okay to pat yourself on the back some if you're aware that you're doing it. 

 

 

50 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Bio and adoptive parent here (international.) Yes, if motivation for adoption is articulated as wanting to rescue someone, it's a huge red flag and an ethical  adoption agency will spend time getting to the bottom of that.  Our agency has a list of non-profits that provide direct aid to families around the world in desperate situations that help keep children in need stay with one or more of their parents or family members. If someone comes in talking about wanting to rescue children from bad situations, they're given that list and encouraged to financially donate to them.

Wanting to parent for a couple of decades hands on in a permanent, lifetime relationship is completely different than wanting to rescue a kid from a bad situation. The relationship dynamic is completely different for the people falling into those two very different camps.  Adult adoptee experience tells us rescuers are prone to making it about themselves at some level, expecting appreciation for it, and resenting adoptees who don't provide some sort of emotional payback related to being rescued. 

People who want to parent are motivated to engage in the act of parenting for a lifetime whether they're adopting or producing biological children by whatever means.

 

49 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

First, she was addressing people with a professional obligation to not harm their patients. Most of us do not have that kind of a relationship with someone we are helping. 

She gave the example of a patient who became dependent on help from a social worker who liked helping that patient. I'm sure that most of us have seen that dynamic in real life. 

She did not say that it was bad to feel good but that we should not seek feeling good as our motivation for helping someone else. 

I think wanting to adopt a child to rescue a child is actually selfish. It makes it seem like the child exists for us to rescue them. 

 

 

Thanks for the answers, everyone! 

I’ve never much thought about adopting, but now that you point it out, I can see how thinking of it as rescuing someone can turn selfish and in the end someone could resent the child if they’re not grateful enough.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Garga

[TechWife]

This is a good video that addresses the patriarchical teaching and resulting abuse that comes out of Douglas Wilson of Christ Church and Logos School in Moscow, Idaho.

My son went to a school patterned after Logos for K-2 and the contents are consistent with material we read that was authored by Wilson, our experience with the right or wrong mentality and with what we learned and observed about his teaching and writing on slavery and patriarchy. My son had a horrible experience there that I can barely talk about to this day. Suffice it to say that a school experience should NEVER break a child’s spirit. 
 

This is part 1 and the description says part 2 will delve more into the abuse that comes as a result of patriarchy. Part 2 doesn’t appear to be up yet. Here is part 1. 
 

 

[Pam in CT]

re Karen Armstrong

8 hours ago, TechWife said:

Karen Armstrong sounds like someone I’d like to learn from. Any book recommendations for me? 

 

8 hours ago, chiguirre said:

Her most famous book is A History of God.

It is. She cycles between long, dense, "heavy" scholarly books that typically compare three or more faith traditions, and much shorter and more accessible ones that typically delve into substantially narrower subjects.  (I imagine her tossing off the lighter ones on planes, as a form of relaxation, LOL.)  History of God is in the former category; her biographies of Muhammad, Buddha and Paul and her volumes on Genesis and myth are in the latter.

I'd say the deepest scholarly treatment of the compassion theme across the historical development of the major faith traditions is in Great Transformation; and the accessible (almost how-to) version of the themes is Twelve Steps.

Through the Narrow Gate and Spiral Staircase are both memoir, the former her time as a nun and the latter her (much later) dark night of the soul.

[Spryte]

DS enjoyed History of God last year, as did I.  Well worth the read.

[Xahm]

22 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re delusions of "honesty"

That is appalling.

And has nothing, nothing whatsoever, not one single thing, to do with honesty.

 

22 hours ago, kbutton said:

The traditional Calvinists (as opposed to the neo-Calvinists) I know tend to believe that they don't know--that babies are predestined just as everyone else is.

That's my impression as well.

However, I don't believe in an age of accountability per se, but I do believe that babies, people who cannot understand, etc. go to heaven via other hints in scripture. I've heard exactly ONE good exposition on this idea that didn't rely on the concept of age of accountability. 

This pastor probably counted as neo-Calvinist. He was eventually kicked out of the denomination on essentially a technicality, but only many years, 15ish, later. He was an odd ball in that he took the undercurrents of what was being said, seized on them wholeheartedly, and verbalized the logical conclusions proudly. This was a conservative, but not traditionally fundamentalist, denomination. When my Grandparents were young, this guy wouldn't have been tolerated, but outside influences have changed things. More pastors coming from certain seminaries, lots of looking at extreme fundamentalists and saying, "their theology is a little shaky, but their sincerity and enthusiasm are commendable" and adopting many attitudes, beliefs, and even practices from that crowd. Meanwhile, the average congregant is distracted (often intentionally by pastors) by the "extreme liberal" churches and so worried about becoming like them that they don't notice or else might even embrace the shift the other direction.

[Faith-manor]

23 minutes ago, Xahm said:

 

This pastor probably counted as neo-Calvinist. He was eventually kicked out of the denomination on essentially a technicality, but only many years, 15ish, later. He was an odd ball in that he took the undercurrents of what was being said, seized on them wholeheartedly, and verbalized the logical conclusions proudly. This was a conservative, but not traditionally fundamentalist, denomination. When my Grandparents were young, this guy wouldn't have been tolerated, but outside influences have changed things. More pastors coming from certain seminaries, lots of looking at extreme fundamentalists and saying, "their theology is a little shaky, but their sincerity and enthusiasm are commendable" and adopting many attitudes, beliefs, and even practices from that crowd. Meanwhile, the average congregant is distracted (often intentionally by pastors) by the "extreme liberal" churches and so worried about becoming like them that they don't notice or else might even embrace the shift the other direction.

Quoting for truth. We see a lot of allowing all kinds of crazy nonsense into churches in the area because "gays and abortion"  Apparently any kind of dirtbag theology is okay so long as the person spouting it hates homosexuals or protests at Planned Parenthood. It is soooooooo gross! 

[J-rap]

On 5/14/2021 at 12:33 PM, Pam in CT said:

re capacity of religion to focus attention toward compassion and care

OK @J-rap I had already made a mental note to find time to select a Greg BOYD book before this, but now I am actively searching. Debating between God of the Possible and Inspired Imperfection - have a recommendation for me?

Karen Armstrong, who first trained and served as a nun before going on a long journey into religious historian, littered with books on all the major faith traditions, returns repeatedly to the idea that religion has both the capacity to call us to our best selves, and also to cloak and give justification to our worst selves: and it is up to us to discern the difference.  And the criteria for that discernment, she argues, is compassion.

 

 

 

PS wish you were in my interfaith book group!

Hmmm...  I haven't read Inspired Imperfection yet, although my church small group is going to be reading that one next month!  Three of my favorites have been Myth of a Christian Nation, God of the Possible, and Benefit of the Doubt.  His theology doesn't all come out in one big bang, but over spending a lot of time hearing his messages, reading his material, etc.  Also, God of the Possible represents his own opinions and he's clear about that. (Not doctrine, not the church's views, not anything we'll know for sure in this lifetime).  But, it certainly resonated with me.

 

 

I wish I could be in your interfaith book group too!

Edited May 15, 2021 by J-rap

[J-rap]

20 hours ago, TechWife said:

Have you read the book Gentle and Lowly by Dane Ortland? It’s amazing - so much we don’t very often hear today. The premise is that the tie Jesus describes Himself, it is as “gentle and lowly at heart” and that in Him we find rest for our “weary souls.” 

I have not!  Just added to my reading list.  I'm in an online book group with my dd's and a few other women and this one looks like it would be a great book for that. 

[Jaybee]

47 minutes ago, J-rap said:

I have not!  Just added to my reading list.  I'm in an online book group with my dd's and a few other women and this one looks like it would be a great book for that. 

It actually took me until about Chapter 6 to really be, wow, this is good stuff. In a few months, I will reread and appreciate more deeply. It's that kind of book.

[Pam in CT]

1 hour ago, J-rap said:

Hmmm...  I haven't read Inspired Imperfection yet, although my church small is going to be reading that one next month!  Three of my favorites have been Myth of a Christian Nation, God of the Possible, and Benefit of the Doubt.  His theology doesn't all come out in one big bang, but over spending a lot of time hearing his messages, reading his material, etc.  Also, God of the Possible represents his own opinions and he's clear about that. (Not doctrine, not the church's views, not anything we'll know for sure in this lifetime).  But, it certainly resonated with me.

 

 

I wish I could be in your interfaith book group too!

K, thanks, I'm starting with God of the Possible then -- maybe see if my library has Benefit of the Doubt; and please LMK what you think about Inspired Imperfection. 

(At this stage in my own journey, I'm actually more interested in more open-ended quests towards the possible, and struggles with ineffable, than more closed-end determined doctrine of particular denominations, IFYWIM).

[Katy]

25 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I was reading some things about the Duggars which led to a podcast about abuse in independent fundamentalist Baptist churches (they always say "IFB"). Then I read about how Calvinism is kind of trendy in this world and very contentious. 

Is that true? Can someone explain that? I have a vague understanding of Calvinism. People are predestined to go to heaven or hell so it doesn't matter what you do, right? And the way you know if you're predestined for heaven is that God rewards you in this life? Is it true that Calvinism is trendy in Fundamentalist churches? I think I read that one of the Duggar SILs got into Calvinism. 

Jeremy was always a Calvinist, it’s why Jim Bob didn’t want he and Jinger to get together. I’m blanking on Jessa’s husband’s name right now but he was exploring it for a while, reading 19th century Calvinist books.  I seriously doubt he is Calvinist though, because he’s a Baptist pastor.  Baptists are pretty clear about free will, even IBLP. To them you just have to say the sinner’s prayer and you are saved.  

Some Baptists teach that if you are REALLY saved you’ll dramatically change.  And if not you aren’t saved.  And that once you are saved you’ll always be saved, because if you turn away you were never really saved at all.

I’m not as versed on “New Calvinism” compared to traditional 5-point.  Maybe someone else can answer that.  But basically you’re predestined, only God knows. You can make no choice to influence whether you go to Heaven or Hell. God causes all good and all evil. We are all totally depraved (ie: all of us are just as bad as Josh Duggar).  There may be evidence that we are saved if we respond to the gospel.  I find it describes God as a horrible being and I don’t understand it at all, there are far too many logical inconsistencies to me. 
 

[Katy]

18 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I remember going to a Baptist funeral a long time ago. The preacher said that the deceased was in heaven because he had been "saved" when he was 6 years old. I remember thinking that was so strange. This guy had left his wife and been very distant with his kids. 

 

Yes, that’s an example of once saved always saved.

[HS Mom in NC]

5 hours ago, Katy said:

 I seriously doubt he is Calvinist though, because he’s a Baptist pastor.  Baptists are pretty clear about free will, even IBLP. To them you just have to say the sinner’s prayer and you are saved. 

It depends on which type of Baptist you are (there are many different types) and where you are regionally.  In my world, most Baptists and even many SBCs are 5 point TULIP Calvinists.

[Chelli]

5 hours ago, Katy said:

Yes, that’s an example of once saved always saved.

Yes, this is a variant of predestination a la Calvin. If I've been predestined to be saved, then I can't lose it. If I leave the church and go my own way, then I never was really saved (wasn't predestined). It all comes from the same Calvinistic tree just different wording. 

[Katy]

28 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I've been thinking about this since yesterday and I'm still confused. I thought that there was a difference between Calvinism and "once saved/always saved." I thought with "once saved/always saved" that you said the sinner's prayer and you were saved forever, no matter what you did. 

I thought with Calvinism that we were predestined for either heaven or hell, no matter what we did. 

 

There are different iterations of Calvinism.  Baptists will generally tell you they believe in free will (at least in the Southern US, which is not Calvinist), but once you get saved you’re always saved. That’s adjacent to one of the aspects of Calvinism but it isn’t one of the 5 tenets. Calvinists believe once saved always saved but that it was God’s decision, not yours.  

It’s very confusing in the world of sola scriptura, especially among Baptists.  They are generally VERY individual as congregations.  They don’t have denominational requirements for education.  I’ve been to a Southern Baptist church where the pastor didn’t even graduate high school. He believed the Bible condemned education.  I’ve been to others that required a theology graduate degree. So the theology gets jumbled when you think learning theology dilutes your understanding of God. It’s confusing for everyone. 

To make it more confusing, there are “New Calvinists” who take some of the 5 tenets but not all.  Those I don’t really understand yet. 

[kbutton]

15 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I've been thinking about this since yesterday and I'm still confused. I thought that there was a difference between Calvinism and "once saved/always saved." I thought with "once saved/always saved" that you said the sinner's prayer and you were saved forever, no matter what you did. 

I thought with Calvinism that we were predestined for either heaven or hell, no matter what we did. 

 

With Calvinists, it's more like "If saved, always saved," though they wouldn't all say agree with that formulation. I would note that I see a LOT of difference between traditional Calvinists and neo-Calvinists, and I don't really know how to explain the difference except a lack of grace on the part of neo-Cals, who tend to be more legalistic. The people I know that grew up in traditional Calvinist environments focus on grace and the character of God. 

Calvinists that I know don't believe in total free will--they believe our response to the gospel is determined by God eternally. People who are more Arminian believe we have a choice to accept or reject the Gospel (and some do believe that choice is still something the Holy Spirit leads us too). 

There are people who aren't either totally in either camp, so you could say there is a spectrum of what people mean by this. I didn't know that Calvinism or Arminianism existed until I was a young adult. We covered all the same verses in my church growing up, but we didn't take a side (independent church, not nearly as fundie as many in the area--more like where the non-strict fundie-ish people ended up after being jaded with the super fundies, lol!!!). We believed that God predestined us, and we believed that the Holy Spirit led people to salvation, but we also believed that there was some degree of choice involved. That probably sounds naive and unexamined, but there are verses that are difficult to reconcile on the topic, or else this would not have been debated forever and ever. We just chose to live with a little gray vs. sketching out the finer points.

Even at the free will end of things, I think there are people that would say that saying the sinner's prayer is predicated on actually meaning it, understanding it, and living it because nearly all people who believe a personal salvation experience is required believe that God changes you through that experience. 

I don't know where to put people who believe you can lose salvation--I don't think that's a requirement to be Arminian, though some Calvinists would argue it is. I'd have to look that up. There is also the group that believes you can attain a level of sinlessness before living in heaven, and I am not sure if that's represented on the scale, but I would say that has some bearing on the conversation since all of it is about sanctification, which evangelicals would say only happens to those who are saved/regenerate.

[kbutton]

3 minutes ago, Katy said:

To make it more confusing, there are “New Calvinists” who take some of the 5 tenets but not all.  Those I don’t really understand yet. 

I would say that 4-point Calvinists (they don't agree with limited atonement) are not what I know as neo-Calvinists. Neo-cals are hard-core 5 points. And then there are SBC Calvinists...sigh. So, there has always been a Calvinist streak inside the SBC from what I understand (didn't grow up in an SBC church, but I have attended one or another for a long time). There is a vested interest in turning all of the SBC Calvinist, and I feel like they have pressed the issue (and some other issues) too far. They are very neo-Cal in their heavy-handed approach. The Christian college I attended was Baptist (not SBC) and basically 4 point Calvinist. Well, the SBC Calvinists started recommending the school to their students and has basically taken over their board, presidency, and Bible department, and I no longer recognize my alma mater. On paper, there isn't much to quibble over doctrinally. In practice, it's very, very different.

Even some traditionally Calvinist denominations have more and less emphasis on these points. I know someone that feels strongly that all 5 points go together or fail altogether, and she will wax poetic on it with people interested in the conversation, but even she is uncomfortable around certain people in a like denomination (both forms of Presbyterianism) that lives and breathes the 5 points like it's the entirety of the theology they care to discuss. 

[Terabith]

I mean, and also many congregations do not uphold their denominational theological stances.  Growing up, I went to a Methodist church that had had significant Calvinism creep in, and I went to an ELCA church briefly where they hard core believed in predestination.  (Which, along with their stance on "God's holiness cannot stand sin," substitutionary atonement, and beliefs about sexuality, led to me standing up in the middle of a sermon with my 3 and 4 year olds, and saying that the God they were insisting was Good News was a capricious, sadistic bastard who was unworthy of worship.)

[ktgrok]

Just now, Terabith said:

I mean, and also many congregations do not uphold their denominational theological stances.  Growing up, I went to a Methodist church that had had significant Calvinism creep in, and I went to an ELCA church briefly where they hard core believed in predestination.  (Which, along with their stance on "God's holiness cannot stand sin," substitutionary atonement, and beliefs about sexuality, led to me standing up in the middle of a sermon with my 3 and 4 year olds, and saying that the God they were insisting was Good News was a capricious, sadistic bastard who was unworthy of worship.)

And then there are whole swaths of Presbyterians who have no idea what predestination even means. 

[kbutton]

2 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

And then there are whole swaths of Presbyterians who have no idea what predestination even means. 

Would that divide be labeled Reformed vs. not? The Calvinist Presbyterians I know are Reformed and most churches that I know that hold to all five points are considered Reformed, including some Baptists. I think there are also Dutch Reformed churches in the US--mainly in Michigan? I know less about those, but they have some pretty tight beliefs IIRC. 

[kbutton]

7 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I mean, and also many congregations do not uphold their denominational theological stances. 

For sure!

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Would that divide be labeled Reformed vs. not? The Calvinist Presbyterians I know are Reformed and most churches that I know that hold to all five points are considered Reformed, including some Baptists. I think there are also Dutch Reformed churches in the US--mainly in Michigan? I know less about those, but they have some pretty tight beliefs IIRC. 

Well, I mean, all presbyterians are supposed to believe in predestination, or at least know what it is - the Presbyterian Church is an offshoot of Scottish Calvinist churches.  But most just pick a church based on the style of music or what time the service is at, lol. (heck, I partly picked my church because of the awesome fair trade coffee and snickers flavored creamer they had at coffee hour...I'm just as bad). 

Edited May 16, 2021 by ktgrok

[kbutton]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

Well, I mean, all presbyterians are supposed to believe in predestination, or at least know what it is - but most just pick a church based on the style of music or what time the service is at, lol. (heck, I partly picked my church because of the awesome fair trade coffee and snickers flavored creamer they had at coffee hour...I'm just as bad). 

I see a big divide in my personal experience between those who are aware and care and those who don't along those lines, but I wasn't sure if all of them were theoretically supposed to believe in it. 😉 

[ktgrok]

Just now, kbutton said:

I see a big divide in my personal experience between those who are aware and care and those who don't along those lines, but I wasn't sure if all of them were theoretically supposed to believe in it. 😉 

Yup - it is a basic belief of the denomination. 

 

[Faith-manor]

12 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Would that divide be labeled Reformed vs. not? The Calvinist Presbyterians I know are Reformed and most churches that I know that hold to all five points are considered Reformed, including some Baptists. I think there are also Dutch Reformed churches in the US--mainly in Michigan? I know less about those, but they have some pretty tight beliefs IIRC. 

The Dutch Reformed have some VERY strict beliefs, especially among the older generation. In Michigan, they are strictly predestination believers, and some of the older generation are kind of "Dutch people are the predestined people", LOL!

[Katy]

46 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I mean, and also many congregations do not uphold their denominational theological stances.  Growing up, I went to a Methodist church that had had significant Calvinism creep in, and I went to an ELCA church briefly where they hard core believed in predestination.  (Which, along with their stance on "God's holiness cannot stand sin," substitutionary atonement, and beliefs about sexuality, led to me standing up in the middle of a sermon with my 3 and 4 year olds, and saying that the God they were insisting was Good News was a capricious, sadistic bastard who was unworthy of worship.)

Good for you!

45 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

And then there are whole swaths of Presbyterians who have no idea what predestination even means. 

My DH was one of them. When I asked him about it he cracked some joke from Anne of Green Gables about the only difference between Methodists and Presbyterians.  And that when it came down to it no one except maybe the pastor was a Calvinist at his church.

ETA:  I think it was something about saying debts or transgressions in prayers and creeds.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Katy

[ktgrok]

Just now, Katy said:

Good for you!

My DH was one of them. When I asked him about it he cracked some joke from Anne of Green Gables about the only difference between Methodists and Presbyterians.  And that when it came down to it no one except maybe the pastor was a Calvinist at his church.

Kudos to you for having a DH that can quote Anne of Green Gables! I'm impressed - that guy is a catch for sure!

[kbutton]

28 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

What are the 5 points and which one do the 4 point folks deny? 

Is this TULIP? (five letters = 5 points?)

 

Limited Atonement is the one most often tossed out by 4 pointers. 

ETA: Sorry, yes TULIP. 5 letters, five points. Didn't meant to leave that out.

Edited May 16, 2021 by kbutton

[Faith-manor]

29 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

What are the 5 points and which one do the 4 point folks deny? 

Is this TULIP? (five letters = 5 points?)

 

It is the L and has to do with the intent of atonement being a single intent, slightly more arminian, instead of dual intent/purpose.

[livetoread]

I used to attend a large liberalish-leaning Presbyterian church in a gorgeous gothic building. It had a high church service with amazing music and attracted a lot of academic types. I remember the PhD from Princeton Seminary pastor preaching on why he disagreed with the predestination doctrine and wondering if he was going to get in trouble with the higher ups. He didn't afaik. I liked that church, lol.

[MercyA]

15 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

What are the 5 points and which one do the 4 point folks deny? 

Is this TULIP? (five letters = 5 points?)

 

I attended an independent Reformed Baptist church in California. The pastor had tulips engraved on his mantlepiece. Lovely people, but couldn't make Calvinists out of us (but they were very gracious about it). 😉 

T: total depravity (all humans are utterly sinful and unable on their own to choose to come to God)

U: unconditional election (you do nothing to merit God choosing you)

L: limited atonement (Christ died only for the elect; I hate even typing this one, bleh)

I: irresistible grace (you can't say no to God's call)

P: perseverance of the saints (once saved, always saved)

Edited May 17, 2021 by MercyA

[HS Mom in NC]

We left the SBC 25 years ago because it was Arminian and because it was loaded with the cheap grace Bonhoeffer railed against in Cost of Discipleship.  We came to the conclusion that the Bible supports the Calvinist position on predestination much or so than free will. We didn't leave in a huff, we just bowed out and moved on because we didn't think it was right to try to change a group from the inside out.  Better to just go hang out with people who already hold that position.  The SBC has changed a lot since then, and the hyper-Calvinists have been jerks about the whole thing throughout all different branches of Christianity, turning election from a secondary doctrinal issue into a primary one, which it isn't.  Plenty of Calvinists are upset by the change in priorities, focus, and tone.

Here's a list of verses.  I'm not going to get into a debate, people can read the verses and their context and come to whatever conclusion. It's not important enough to argue about-it's a secondary issue. (I don't know why Romans chapter 9 isn't listed, but it should've been included.) 

https://reformedwiki.com/verses/predestination

Edited May 17, 2021 by Homeschool Mom in AZ

[kbutton]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

To me, this sounds like people putting themselves in the place of God and trying to work something out that we can't work out for ourselves. 

The quoted bit--this perspective always interests me. Sola Fide is a tenet of Protestant faith, but we often don't notice that this quoted perspective is ultimately about faith as well. I appreciate hearing it. 

People have been working out a response to predestination verses for centuries, and some people manage to showcase a very loving God simultaneously. (Sounds nuts, I know!) 

10 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

the hyper-Calvinists have been jerks about the whole thing throughout all different branches of Christianity, turning election from a secondary doctrinal issue into a primary one, which it isn't.  Plenty of Calvinists are upset by the change in priorities, focus, and tone.

Exactly. They don't seem to have a view of God I particularly like either. More traditional Calvinists have a high view of God that is beautiful and something I wish I had more of growing up. 

[J-rap]

15 minutes ago, kbutton said:

The quoted bit--this perspective always interests me. Sola Fide is a tenet of Protestant faith, but we often don't notice that this quoted perspective is ultimately about faith as well. I appreciate hearing it. 

People have been working out a response to predestination verses for centuries, and some people manage to showcase a very loving God simultaneously. (Sounds nuts, I know!) 

Exactly. They don't seem to have a view of God I particularly like either. More traditional Calvinists have a high view of God that is beautiful and something I wish I had more of growing up. 

There are at least a number of verses that show that God's hope/ideal plan is for everyone to "be saved."   Such as  1 John 2:2, 1 Tim. 2:4, 1 Tim. 4:10, John 3:16.

You might be interested in the book God of The Possible, an interesting possibility.

[TechWife]

There are a lot of SBC people that are reformed. It’s prevalent in the south and is being taught in some of the SBC seminaries. They are often called the “young, restless and reformed,” or YRR. I identify them by their age - most aren’t out of their 30’s yet, their arrogance, their judgmental attitudes, and the married ones can be identified by their beards (I have no idea why, but it’s pretty much universally true). They are very condescending toward women, but think they are being sweet (I can mentally see them patting me on the head).   I don’t think they all fully understand Calvinism or what is traditionally Baptist doctrine. I think they mean well, but they are somewhat confused and don’t accurately represent or practice baptist doctrine, and likely not reformed doctrine, either. We are trying to swim around in reformed influenced SBC waters in our church. We are not Calvinist or reformed. The past tens years or so have been, well, interesting, to say the least.