"Who Would Jesus Smack Down?" (NY Times article re Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill)

[Colleen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em

 

Thought I'd share this article from today's NY Times Magazine since at some point, way back when, we discussed Mark Driscoll and the Mars Hill phenom.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Colleen

[King Alfred Academy]

Can you point me to that "conversation"? I am interested in reading it. I have a "vested" interest in it you could say.

 

Thanks :001_smile:

[Danestress]

But I like the statement, "They are sinning through questioning."

 

Probaby not a good church match for me:)

[Jennefer@SSA]

Mark Driscoll is definitely bold. This author assumes that boldness is the opposite of humility. Not so. Pride is the opposite of humility.

 

Mark speaks openly and honestly about issues that the contemporary church often skirts and the overwhelmingly positive response seems to highlight the reality that it's about time (for the segment of the population he is trying to reach, anyway :))

 

Hopefully Calvinists should be incredibly humble because when you are confronted with the grace of God it can't help but to humble you. Read CJ Mahaney, John Piper or Josh Harris. No one is saying Mark Driscoll is infallible; he would be the first to admit this. Yet he is reaching the most unchurched demographic with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the church in Seattle is exploding. Good for him.

 

Also, Mark has publicly repented of using foul language and yet this author makes it seem that he is on the stage regularly dropping "f bombs". Again, not so.

 

I would encourage anyone who wants to decide for themselves to go to YouTube and watch a sermon or two or three and decide for yourself. I personally would not adopt the opinion of one writer without seeing for myself. Keep in mind, you may or may not care for Mark's style but style and substance are two different things.

 

In my opinion this author has a bone to pick with Calvinism and it shows. What do you think the New York Times would say about homeschooling? Do you think it would be favorable? Would you lend that article credence?

 

Just my humble .02

Edited January 12, 2009 by Jennefer@SSA

[Jennefer@SSA]

But I like the statement, "They are sinning through questioning."

 

Probably not a good church match for me:)

 

Just remember that there are two sides of every story. My guess is that she chose to tell the part of the story that backs up the picture she is trying to paint. How often could we be misunderstood if bits and pieces of what we said are taken and pieced together?

 

My guess is that we will hear from Mark himself. I plan on checking his blog for the next several days to see what he has to say.

 

For anyone interested it's - The Resurgence

[Danestress]

I'm pretty good with that concept.

 

But unless she was absolutely lying and fabricating, this church is just frankly not my "style" even apart from theology. I wouldn't be comfortable with a pastor who wanted to preach about or@l sex, m@sturbation or pleasing one's spouse. Even just a little. Even just on Wednesday night. It just wouldn't be a good fit for me. I'm sure he has other good things going, and I am not condemning him, but I that's just not what I look for in a church. I also seriously doubt I could handle his "leadership style" again, unless the article was just one big lie.

[Jennefer@SSA]

I'm pretty good with that concept.

 

But unless she was absolutely lying and fabricating, this church is just frankly not my "style" even apart from theology. I wouldn't be comfortable with a pastor who wanted to preach about or@l sex, m@sturbation or pleasing one's spouse. Even just a little. Even just on Wednesday night. It just wouldn't be a good fit for me. I'm sure he has other good things going, and I am not condemning him, but I that's just not what I look for in a church. I also seriously doubt I could handle his "leadership style" again, unless the article was just one big lie.

 

I totally appreciate that Mark's style is not one you'd feel comfortable with - to be honest I am not sure if I lived in Seattle it would be where I'd attend. If those are the reasons he's not your cuppa, then I completely get it. And it's fortunate his church isn't catered for you and me! He gears his church and his messages for a much edgier segment of our society for sure.

 

My only reason to respond was that you just happened to quote a passage from the article that I felt was a cheap shot (by the author of the said article).

 

What this lady in this article did is point out so much that is controversial about not only Driscoll but Calvinism as well. It reminds me of how uninformed people often write about homeschooling. They tend to pull out the most sensational stories to appall others and sway them away.

 

Again, just my .02

Edited January 12, 2009 by Jennefer@SSA

[Colleen]

Can you point me to that "conversation"?

 

I just ran a search for "Driscoll" and didn't come up with what I was looking for. I seem to remember that it did take place on this board format, though ~ e.g. after WTM adopted this format at the beginning of 2007. I may be hallucinating and the conversation I'm thinking of took place among some other online friends of mine. Sorry about that.

[Colleen]

I can't tell if you're making general comments here or responding to me specifically, Jennifer. Any-hoo, I'm glad a couple of people responded.:)

 

Mark Driscoll is definitely bold. This author assumes that boldness is the opposite of humility. Not so. Pride is the opposite of humility.

 

Good point, and I agree.

 

I would encourage anyone who wants to decide for themselves to go to YouTube and watch a sermon or two or three and decide for yourself. I personally would not adopt the opinion of one writer without seeing for myself. Keep in mind, you may or may not care for Mark's style but style and substance are two different things.

 

In my opinion this author has a bone to pick with Calvinism and it shows. What do you think the New York Times would say about homeschooling? Do you think it would be favorable? Would you lend that article credence?

 

 

Again, I don't know if your "you" is addressing me directly. I didn't imply anyone should rush to judgment based on one article alone, and I do agree that the author has a negative bias toward Calvinism. I am quite familiar with Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill so this article in particular caught my attention and I wanted to share.

 

Btw, if you go the New York Times site and run a search for "homeschooling", you may be pleasantly surprised. Just as you wouldn't want people to make assumptions about Driscoll based on one article, you probably don't want to make assumptions about a publication based on...no article, right?;)

[fivetails]

He sounds...angry. Or something.

 

I don't know much about "Calvinism" - but this whole "predestination" thing that the article talks about seems so....hopeless. I mean, if God has already picked out those who will go on to Heaven and those who won't ...then...well...what's the point? :001_huh: That's how *that* idea feels.....I don't think it's right at all. We make a choice - the whole thing about "free will", right? We have the ability to accept or reject God.

[Jennefer@SSA]

I apologize for not being more specific. I was just making general statements, not directing anything towards you. :)

 

It just comes down to the fact that I felt it was a poorly written article. It mentioned lots of points meant to incite others to anger/shock/dismay (in my opinion anyway. And I truly realize this is just that...my opinion).

 

She did not once mention all the wonderful things Mark and his friends have done though his Acts 29 church planting network. They have helped re-spark an interest in bringing the church back to the urban centers of America, places the contemporary church has too often given up hope on. Acts 29 trains literally 1000's of church planters every year at their "Boot Camps" and supports them on what is one extremely tough mission - church planting...and often in some of the toughest neighborhoods in America! I hope the next article the NY Times writes is on that! ;)

Edited January 12, 2009 by Jennefer@SSA
a ton of typos due to the fact I was typing pre-caffeine and with a fussing 2yo in arms! ;)

[Jennefer@SSA]

Again, I don't know if your "you" is addressing me directly. I didn't imply anyone should rush to judgment based on one article alone, and I do agree that the author has a negative bias toward Calvinism. I am quite familiar with Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill so this article in particular caught my attention and I wanted to share.

 

Colleen, I apologize if I made it sound that I was implying such. I enjoy your posts and find you to be very thoughtful in your responses. I would not want anyone to think I thought less than that of you.

[chiguirre]

Molly Worthen also did a piece on New St. Andrews and Doug Wilson. I liked the article and thought it was balanced, given what I've heard of Doug Wilson and NSA from hsing sources.

 

Here's the link:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/magazine/30Christian-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

 

Enjoy!

[LNC]

I love the look of Omnibus - but Douglas Wilson just KILLS me. What is his deal!!!!

 

Quote from the NYT linked above:

"Doug Wilson proudly declares himself more right-wing than most Idaho conservatives. “They voted for Bush; I’d vote for Jefferson Davis,†he chuckles."

[laylamcb]

"But what is new about Driscoll is that he has resurrected a particular strain of fire and brimstone, one that most Americans assume died out with the Puritans: Calvinism, a theology that makes Pat Robertson seem warm and fuzzy."

 

 

Shhh! Don't tell the PCA that Calvinism's been dead since the Puritans and only recently revived by a guy wearing blue jeans in church. :001_rolleyes:

 

I'm a Calvinist and, strangely, I don't even live in Seattle. Plus I'm WAY warmer and fuzzier than Pat Robertson. ;)

[farmgirlinwv]

Since there appear to be some Calvanists here, I'd like to ask a question or two. :D

 

I was raised Baptist, but I believe in the gifts of the Spirit as well. Only not in the typical Charismatic way. Anyway, we were taught that God knows everything. So He knows who will choose Him. It seems w/ Calvanism that God has chosen some. Everyone else is just w/o hope. Those w/o hope were created by God for that purpose. I'm I getting that right or wrong?

 

Also, how do Calvanists understand or achieve salvation? Could Hitler have been predestined to salvation and is in heaven now because it didn't matter what he did?

 

I'm not being rude. I'm trying to understand. God is shaking up my beliefs right now, so I'm just looking for information. It's hard to reconcile Jesus dying for everyone w/ Jesus died for the select few.

 

Also, in Calvanism are you not allowed to question what's being taught? Is the pastor above reproach? Did Calvin really have that man go through the streets begging for forgiveness? I have always interpretted the scriptures to mean that when we repent and turn from our sin God is faithful to forgive us w/o our having to debase ourselves or beg.

 

Anyway, I'm just interested is all. I'm in no way putting down Calvanists. I just don't understand this theology. Any help appreciated. :)

 

Lisa

[ChristusG]

Good questions, Lisa....they were exactly what I was going to ask. I was raised Baptist and still am one now...and I dont understand the "select few" in Calvinism. I hope that someone can explain it.

[fivetails]

It seems w/ Calvanism that God has chosen some. Everyone else is just w/o hope. Those w/o hope were created by God for that purpose.

 

That just seems so......sad.....y'know? :confused:

[Jennefer@SSA]

Shhh! Don't tell the PCA that Calvinism's been dead since the Puritans and only recently revived by a guy wearing blue jeans in church. :001_rolleyes:

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[angela in ohio]

I haven't read the article; I wanted to address some of the questions about Calvinism. There are many here who can do a much better job of explaining this (I tend to evangelize in the areas of marriage and parenting, so that is where I can speak more cohesively.) Search Calvinism, Reformed, and "Dark Side" on this board for some great, great threads that can answer many questions.

 

There are many Calvinists on this board. Calvinism is alive and well. ;)

 

Calvinism is usually defined by five points, called TULIP for reference. They are in contrast to Arminianism, which is based on the work of Jacob Arminius. (Many people follow the teachings of Arminius, but do not either know that or define it that way.) The argument goes back much further than that, though, as many of the same points were argued between St. Augustine and Pelagius. So, while Calvinism is the usual label, these beliefs are not unique to Calvin, and so believing them is not following him, it is following a long-understood theology. Calvinism is not "new" and it is not "old," LOL.

 

Basically, mankind is totally depraved, not capable of choosing Good without first the intervention of God. Mankind is totally fallen (dead, not just sick.) Dead men cannot save themselves, so man must first be called by God, the ability must be put into him by God to choose God. God knew before the beginning of time who He would choose, simply because He knows everything. Jesus died on the cross for the elect, because God knew who those people were (and has always known.) So Jesus' death accomplished its purpose. Also, when God calls you, you cannot resist, and you will remain God's and cannot lose your salvation through your own decision.

 

That is a very quick and not very eloquent overview.

 

I find so much hope in Calvinism, because it is all about God's power. I cannot believe that Jesus died for all, but some are not going to be saved, so His death was partially a failure.

 

I have friends who have taken some time to get used to the idea that some are not chosen by God to be saved. The concept is usually found in the verses Romans 9:21-23: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

 

It makes it easier for me to share the Gospel knowing that God has a plan. It is not up to me to say the right words or find the right person. God will use me as He needs. There is so much peace in that.

 

If you are predestined to salvation, you will be saved, and if you are truly saved, the fruit will be evident. So, while only God knows for sure, I think we could assume that Hitler was not predestined to be saved.

 

I hope this is helpful.

[unsinkable]

He was raised Roman Catholic and got his first Bible at 19?

 

To me, there seems to be a disconnect there.

[Rose in BC]

He sounds...angry. Or something.

 

I don't know much about "Calvinism" - but this whole "predestination" thing that the article talks about seems so....hopeless. I mean, if God has already picked out those who will go on to Heaven and those who won't ...then...well...what's the point? :001_huh: That's how *that* idea feels.....I don't think it's right at all. We make a choice - the whole thing about "free will", right? We have the ability to accept or reject God.

 

I was raised Baptist and still consider myself Baptist . . . reformed Baptist. I became a Christian at a young age, raised in a Christian home, etc. etc. When my sister's husband introduced the idea of reformed theology to us I was actually angry at the idea of predestination etc. It took me some time and much searching through scripture to understand election and to see it woven throughout scripture. It's almost hard to avoid seeing it. One thing that helped me was looking at scripture as a revelation of God's plan from Genesis to Revelation.

 

Hopeless . . . absolutely not. I have never had so much hope. I have hope in evangelism . . . I don't fear "saying the wrong thing" because it's not me that saves, it's God's work. I have hope in my own Salvation because I recognize if it was dependent on me I would have been sunk a long time ago but God causes me to persevere. Do I have any responsibility in my faith? Absolutely. If I am a Christian then I will endeavour to follow the commands in scripture and display the fruit of the spirit.

 

Enough rambling. I just wanted to let you know that I came from a non-Calvinist background, understanding all the criticisms levied against it and yet am now reformed myself.

[Rose in BC]

Since there appear to be some Calvanists here, I'd like to ask a question or two. :D

 

I was raised Baptist, but I believe in the gifts of the Spirit as well. Only not in the typical Charismatic way. Anyway, we were taught that God knows everything. So He knows who will choose Him. It seems w/ Calvanism that God has chosen some. Everyone else is just w/o hope. Those w/o hope were created by God for that purpose. I'm I getting that right or wrong?

 

Also, how do Calvanists understand or achieve salvation? Could Hitler have been predestined to salvation and is in heaven now because it didn't matter what he did?

 

I'm not being rude. I'm trying to understand. God is shaking up my beliefs right now, so I'm just looking for information. It's hard to reconcile Jesus dying for everyone w/ Jesus died for the select few.

 

Also, in Calvanism are you not allowed to question what's being taught? Is the pastor above reproach? Did Calvin really have that man go through the streets begging for forgiveness? I have always interpretted the scriptures to mean that when we repent and turn from our sin God is faithful to forgive us w/o our having to debase ourselves or beg.

 

Anyway, I'm just interested is all. I'm in no way putting down Calvanists. I just don't understand this theology. Any help appreciated. :)

 

Lisa

 

I'll try and answer a couple of your questions . . . admittedly I did not grow up in a Calvinist church. I am Baptist. So my answers come from my own experience and probably limited understanding. I have never heard that Calvinist's aren't allowed to question what's taught . . . and if that's true then I'm one bad Calvinist because I question everything, all the time. It's how I became a Calvinist.

 

Begging for forgiveness . . . Salvation comes through faith alone which is a free gift. Until I became reformed I don't think I really understood the freedom we have in Christ as Christians. In fact my salvation was far more legalistic than it is now as a reformed Christian . . . I cannot earn my salvation. This is what the early reformers (Luther, etc.) were fighting the established church at the time of the reformation where salvation seemed to depend on works.

 

I do understand your concerns . . . I definitely had them until I searched scripture and understood the bible from the context of God's plan being revealed from Genesis to Revelations.

[OnTheBrink]

Since there appear to be some Calvanists here, I'd like to ask a question or two. :D

 

I was raised Baptist, but I believe in the gifts of the Spirit as well. Only not in the typical Charismatic way. Anyway, we were taught that God knows everything. So He knows who will choose Him. It seems w/ Calvanism that God has chosen some. Everyone else is just w/o hope. Those w/o hope were created by God for that purpose. I'm I getting that right or wrong?

 

Also, how do Calvanists understand or achieve salvation? Could Hitler have been predestined to salvation and is in heaven now because it didn't matter what he did?

 

You're misunderstanding election. :) The elect are saved, by faith. They repent of their sins, have a renewing of their minds and live for Christ. I think it's relatively safe to say Hitler doesn't fall into that category.

 

Many misunderstand the concept. I did for a long time, too. The elect aren't tagged at birth, so to speak, as saved and can therefore go do whatever they want because they're saved. It's the opposite, really. And the best way I can explain it is that it's circular. God gives us grace to come to Him, we respond to it. It's humbling, not prideful. If you see someone bragging about their salvation in a nanny nanny booboo sort of way, they don't get what salvation really is. The Bible says that not all who call themselves saved are saved. There will be people Jesus will say he never knew. There is other scripture that says man doesn't come to God on his own, that man is depraved and can only come to God by the grace God gives him to do so. See the circular part I referred to? I don't claim to have all the answers and to me, it doesn't matter who believes in election vs free will. IMO, the bottom line is, are you saved? I personally don't care if you think you got there by your own choice or if you were drawn to Christ by God's grace. I believe it's God's irresistible grace that drew me to him, because I KNOW how depraved I am as a human.

 

I'm not being rude. I'm trying to understand. God is shaking up my beliefs right now, so I'm just looking for information. It's hard to reconcile Jesus dying for everyone w/ Jesus died for the select few.

 

Also, in Calvanism are you not allowed to question what's being taught? Is the pastor above reproach? Did Calvin really have that man go through the streets begging for forgiveness? I have always interpretted the scriptures to mean that when we repent and turn from our sin God is faithful to forgive us w/o our having to debase ourselves or beg.

 

I can't answer for every Calvinist pastor, but my pastor encourages questions, questioning. It sends people to Scripture to find answers and he's completely open to being challenged and will patiently and humbly sit down with anyone and search scripture with them to find answers.

Anyway, I'm just interested is all. I'm in no way putting down Calvanists. I just don't understand this theology. Any help appreciated. :)

 

An excellent book on Calvinism is "Biblical Christianity" by John Calvin. I can send you a copy, if you like. Just PM me if interested.

Lisa

:)

[farmgirlinwv]

Thanks for all the replies. :D

 

I have always believed that those who come to God do so because He draws us to Him. So that Calvanistic, I guess. :confused: The part that gets me is the lost. I just hate that. I am trying to more fully recognize God's sovereign will. That is not taught much today and it is sorely needed. I'll look into it. I'm sure there's tons of info pro and con online.

 

Also, what denomination believes this way?

 

Thanks,

 

Lisa

[StaceyinLA]

If God is really shaking you up right now, you oughta read the book, "Rome Sweet Home."

 

I was raised Catholic, have been in a reformed church, and reading this book is changing my life. Honestly, I don't know how anyone could read it and not be changed.

 

After all the years of hearing people condemn the Catholic church, it is a breath of fresh air. I am sad that I didn't know the things I know now back when I was searching as a young adult. I wish I'd have found this book then.

[farmgirlinwv]

I found this comparison of Calvanism and Armeninism (sp). http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html

[angela in ohio]

Thanks for all the replies. :D

 

I have always believed that those who come to God do so because He draws us to Him. So that Calvanistic, I guess. :confused: The part that gets me is the lost. I just hate that. I am trying to more fully recognize God's sovereign will. That is not taught much today and it is sorely needed. I'll look into it. I'm sure there's tons of info pro and con online.

 

Also, what denomination believes this way?

 

Thanks,

 

Lisa

 

You know what really helped me over this? Thinking, "Who am I to decide if God's plan is *fair* or not?" That really put it into perspective for me: Who do I believe is sovereign?

 

We are PCA, and we are firmly Reformed/Calvinist. A good start at a list is on Wikipedia.

[farmgirlinwv]

If God is really shaking you up right now, you oughta read the book, "Rome Sweet Home."

 

I was raised Catholic, have been in a reformed church, and reading this book is changing my life. Honestly, I don't know how anyone could read it and not be changed.

 

After all the years of hearing people condemn the Catholic church, it is a breath of fresh air. I am sad that I didn't know the things I know now back when I was searching as a young adult. I wish I'd have found this book then.

 

I don't know if I'm so shook up that I can see myself Catholic! :D JK!

I don't want religion or denominations. I want the truth in a simple easy to understand way. ya know? I appreciate your input. I'm glad you've found peace in your beliefs. I believe that most doctrines/religions/denomination all have good things about them. It's just there seems to be wrong mixed in there too. (with all of them) It seems like it should be simple, but it's not. Maybe it's just me. :confused:

[farmgirlinwv]

You know what really helped me over this? Thinking, "Who am I to decide if God's plan is *fair* or not?" That really put it into perspective for me: Who do I believe is sovereign?

 

We are PCA, and we are firmly Reformed/Calvinist. A good start at a list is on Wikipedia.

 

 

You make a good point. I'm going to keep studying.

[Melissa in CA]

we were taught that God knows everything. So He knows who will choose Him. It seems w/ Calvinism that God has chosen some. Everyone else is just w/o hope. Those w/o hope were created by God for that purpose. I'm I getting that right or wrong?

 

A good resource for understanding Gods Sovereign choice in salvation is a sermon series [Chosen for Eternity] by John MacArthur. You can download it for free here: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/series/151

 

Please keep in mind that those who do not "choose" him do not WANT to choose him. It's not like they are sitting around lamenting that they don't get the choice. They want nothing to do with Him. Period.

 

Those that do choose Him, were first chosen by God in love, and given the desire for God. We love Him because He first loved us! Gives you a different feel for that scripture doesn't it?

 

I don't have time to go into great detail....and trust me, I could say plenty! :w00t: Basically, we ALL deserve Hell as we have all sinned against God in one form or another. It is God's amazing Grace that He chose some of us sinners to redeem for Himself. To say that He chose all, and died for all, yet all will not be saved is to say that Christ's death did not accomplish it's purpose. It was ineffectual. If it is entirely dependent on man's choice, what if NO man decided to choose Christ...what would the purpose of His death be then? :confused: He didn't die for the possibilty of salvation did he? Doesn't it make more sense that He died for those pre-chosen by the Father? Those elected unto salvation? Remember, he took upon Himself the iniquity of us all. Is that "us" everyone in the world? Or is that "us" those that were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world? [ephesians 1:4] If it is for everyone in the world...then everyone will be saved! Yeah! Yet, scripture does not teach that everyone will be saved....only those the Father has given the Son. So, the "us" refers to the chosen, the elect, the believers.

 

Many, many, MANY are uninformed about true Calvinism. It is not really the teachings of Calvin, it is actually the teaching of scripture. When you see that, and really learn what Calvinism is...you will not HELP but see it throughout scripture. It truly is historical biblical Christianity...not some oddity.

 

What I find odd is today's mantra of 'free will in salvation.' I cannot find that in the bible. Yes, we do have some form of free will. I can freely chose to sin or not sin. I can freely chose to eat donuts for breakfast instead of oatmeal, and we do have choices daily on how we follow Christ...but the choice of who would follow him was decided before the foundation of the world. If you're a believer and follower of Jesus Christ...you can thank God for that! Don't thank yourself for the great choice you made with your "free will." You were spiritually DEAD in your trespasses and sins. Without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit replacing your hardened dead heart with a new one...you would still be dead in your trespasses and sins. Free will or no free will.

 

Calvinism is very humbling. Very. But, oh, so sweet is our salvation. :D

 

An easy read for Calvinism is: Chosen By God by RC Sproul

A great DVD is: Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism. http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Grace-History-Theology-Calvinism/dp/B0006B46K8/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_1

 

Do yourself a favor and study what Calvinism REALLY teaches by true Calvinists. If you read only anti-Calvinist books you will NOT get the whole picture. Truly.

 

Sorry for my ramblings. I wrote very 'off the cuff' and from my heart, so if I don't make sense please forgive me. :blush:

[Kathleen in VA]

I am a believer in the "Doctrines of Grace" also know as the five points of Calvinism. I do not agree with everything Calvin said, though, so I am loathe to call myself a Calvinist - I am a biblical Christian.:)

 

Here is an excellent quote that explains the concept of election much better than I ever could:

 

After giving a brief survey of these doctrines of sovereign grace, I asked for questions from the class. One lady, in particular, was quite troubled. She said, 'This is the most awful thing I've ever heard! You make it sound as if God is intentionally turning away men and women who would be saved, receiving only the elect.' I answered her in this vein: 'You misunderstand the situation. You're visualizing that God is standing at the door of heaven, and men are thronging to get in the door, and God is saying to various ones, 'Yes, you may come, but not you, and you, but not you, etc.' The situation is hardly this. Rather, God stands at the door of heaven with His arms outstretched, inviting all to come. Yet all men without exception are running in the opposite direction towards hell as hard as they can go. So God, in election, graciously reaches out and stops this one, and that one, and this one over here, and that one over there, and effectually draws them to Himself by changing their hearts, making them willing to come. Election keeps no one out of heaven who would otherwise have been there, but it keeps a whole multitude of sinners out of hell who otherwise would have been there. Were it not for election, heaven would be an empty place, and hell would be bursting at the seams. That kind of response, grounded as I believe that it is in Scriptural truth, does put a different complexion on things, doesn't it? If you perish in hell, blame yourself, as it is entirely your fault. But if you should make it to heaven, credit God, for that is entirely His work! To Him alone belong all praise and glory, for salvation is all of grace, from start to finish. - Mark Webb

 

This and other quotes found on this site:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/quotes/

[Saille]

Basically, mankind is totally depraved, not capable of choosing Good without first the intervention of God. Mankind is totally fallen (dead, not just sick.) Dead men cannot save themselves, so man must first be called by God, the ability must be put into him by God to choose God. God knew before the beginning of time who He would choose, simply because He knows everything. Jesus died on the cross for the elect, because God knew who those people were (and has always known.) So Jesus' death accomplished its purpose. Also, when God calls you, you cannot resist, and you will remain God's and cannot lose your salvation through your own decision.

 

That is a very quick and not very eloquent overview.

 

I find so much hope in Calvinism, because it is all about God's power. I cannot believe that Jesus died for all, but some are not going to be saved, so His death was partially a failure.

 

I have friends who have taken some time to get used to the idea that some are not chosen by God to be saved. The concept is usually found in the verses Romans 9:21-23: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

 

I want to say first of all that I know how hard this kind of thing is to explain at any time, let alone in the middle of the homeschooling day. I appreciate you taking the time (I was just coming back to start a thread asking questions about Calvinism, and saw this!) Here are some questions I have based on your above post:

 

1. If salvation (or the lack thereof) is predestined, what was the purpose of Jesus's death?

 

2. If Calvinists are Trinitarians (I looked that up) :), how could Jesus commit an act that was partially a failure?

 

3. Do you feel conflicted about the fact that the saved cannot lose their salvation, no matter what they do? Or do you simply believe that, because they are saved, they are predestined to detect and correct their errors of judgement before death?

 

4. Are there other Biblical passages from which this concept is drawn? I ask because that particular passage sounds like a hypothetical.

 

5. Edited to add one more: Do Calvinists believe that choosing Calvinism is a sign of being saved? Do they believe that non-Calvinists can be saved?

 

I find it fascinating that some of us regarded this way of thinking as hopeless, only to find that you derive hope from it.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Saille

[farmgirlinwv]

Kathleen and Melissa...those are great posts! It really helped me alot! I'm going to look into the info you posted. It really made it a lot more clear for me. It's not that far from what I already believed.

 

What God has been dealing w/ me about is *my* trying to do everything right. Not for my salvation, I don't believe in a works salvation. I try to do everything right to keep bad things from my family. It's very works based and very difficult and disheartening. So, I'm being led to study God's soverein will, and most importantly trusting in Him. So I really appreciated everyone's responses. Very helpful! I'm going to keep studying.

 

Lisa

[Cedarmom]

But I like the statement, "They are sinning through questioning."

 

Probaby not a good church match for me:)

:iagree:

 

Along with punching the elders in the nose if they disagreed. I thought one of the purpose of the elders was to give advice to the pastor. Apparently Driscoll is so wise he doesn't need any advice.

[Jugglin'5]

:iagree:

 

Along with punching the elders in the nose if they disagreed. I thought one of the purpose of the elders was to give advice to the pastor. Apparently Driscoll is so wise he doesn't need any advice.

 

 

 

I don't know much about Driscoll, but I wouldn't assume that the NYT gave the full story behind that particular quote. I wouldn't want someone making a snap judgment of my character based on one newspaper article.

[OnTheBrink]

You make a good point. I'm going to keep studying.

 

 

Another excellent book is "Doctrines that Divide" by Erwin Lutzer. He compares election/free will in several different ways, presenting differing viewpoints (Calvin, Erasmus, etc).

[Erica in PA]

There were a couple of comments made by the author of the article that really bother me:

 

"New Calvinists are still relatively few in number, but that doesn’t bother them: being a persecuted minority proves you are among the elect." Really? Being a persecuted minority is what proves one is among the elect?? Any facts to back up this claim? I don't know any Calvinists who believe this-- this is a very big assumption by the author, presented as fact.

 

"At one suburban campus that I visited, a huge yellow cross dominated center stage — until the projection screen unfurled and Driscoll’s face blocked the cross from view." Sigh....that's just plain dumb. :thumbdown:

 

"Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents." Again, where is the basis for this far-reaching claim? The author is stating as fact something that she offers no evidence for whatsoever. In fact, one could more logically argue that belief in election is *supremely* humbling, because you acknowledge that you played *no* role in your salvation whatsoever, not even making the choice to believe in Christ-- and every Calvinist I have ever known also makes it clear at every possible occasion that there was **nothing** in them that made God choose them-- it was His grace *only* that led to their salvation. So from my experience, election is an extremely humbling doctrine. But philosopical disagreement aside, I find it irresponsible to make such broad, condemning statements without offering any evidence whatsoever.

 

I don't think I'd like attending this church, but not because of the doctrines being preached-- this man's style does not appeal to me. But if I were to write an article about it to be published in one of the world's most prominent newspapers, I would hope to differentiate between fact and my opinion, and to present a more fair picture than this writer did.

[Lisa R.]

He is the most dynamic speaker I've ever heard in person. He also has the most unusual church I've ever attended. Seattle is the most unchurched city in the United States and Mars Hill is growing exponentially. Many of the people that attend Mars Hill have never seen the inside of a church. People come in tattoos, piercings, shorts, nice dress clothes--anyone would feel welcome. Driscoll tells people bluntly how they should live as Christians. The controversial and graphic subjects spoken of in the article were likely part of a series for Song of Solomon. He certainly doesn't talk like every Sunday.

 

 

As for the quote about Driscoll not wanting anyone to question him...I have difficulty believing this wasn't taken out of context.

 

There are free podcasts on http://www.marshillchurch.org on many, many topics and books of the Bible. If you want a clear, Biblical understanding of predestination, Calvinism, marriage, finances, there are great sermons on this.

[Sunshyne]

I have never considered myself a Calvinist, if only because my exposure has been limited. However, I listen to Driscoll regularly, and just finished his "Solomon" series.

 

He's awesome. I agree with most everything he says, and I have learned a great deal from his podcasts.

 

The NYT article was exaggerated, no doubt.

 

~Sunshyne

[mommaduck]

Reformed Denominations http://reformed.net/church/denoms.html

 

Questions & debate are the NORM in Reformed churches. We love a good debate.

[ChristusG]

I'm a bit confused. So if people are alredy predestined to go to Heaven......then what's the point of witnessing? What's the point of drawing new people into the church and telling them about God if they are already chosen? Could someone explain that to me?

[Spy Car]

I The concept is usually found in the verses Romans 9:21-23:

 

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

 

 

 

Wouldn't a competent potter create more (far more) good pots than bad pots?

 

But in this version the potter creates nothing but bad pots. Really bad pots. Not a good one in the bunch. Everyone is totally deplorable.

 

Then the potter (after a period of time where he endures the frustration of his own poor handiwork) smashes most of his creations with wrathful anger (against whom?). In his wrath he saves a few pots, not because he created them well, but so the "saved" pots will be awe-struck that he didn't smash them too.

 

Really?

 

Something seems wrong with this story.

 

Bill

[Rose in BC]

I'm a bit confused. So if people are alredy predestined to go to Heaven......then what's the point of witnessing? What's the point of drawing new people into the church and telling them about God if they are already chosen? Could someone explain that to me?

 

Scripture tells us he has appointed some to be preachers etc. and has commanded all of us to evangelize. We evangelize because we are called to do this and we know that faith comes by hearing the word.

[Melissa in CA]

1. If salvation (or the lack thereof) is predestined, what was the purpose of Jesus's death?

 

Regardless of whether one is predestined or not, God is Holy and Just, therefore a punishment for sin is required. Amazingly God came down in earthly form to pay that price FOR us, but no, I don't believe it was for every single person, otherwise his payment WAS a partial failure.

 

2. If Calvinists are Trinitarians (I looked that up) :), how could Jesus commit an act that was partially a failure?

 

Unless you are talking about the failure of saving everyone on the planet (see above), I am not sure of what partial failure you could be talking of.

 

3. Do you feel conflicted about the fact that the saved cannot lose their salvation, no matter what they do? Or do you simply believe that, because they are saved, they are predestined to detect and correct their errors of judgment before death?

 

If someone is TRULY saved they will not want to sin. They WILL sin, but they will not want too, nor will they live in sin. The bible tells us that if someone is living in sin that the father is not in them....they are not saved. "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." 1 John 3:9 esv

 

So if you have a "Christian" who is living in immoral grievous sin month after month after month...it's probably safe to say that they may not truly be a Christian. But that's one left for God to decide, not I.

 

5. Do Calvinists believe that choosing Calvinism is a sign of being saved? Do they believe that non-Calvinists can be saved?

 

Good Grief, NO! You do not have to be a "Calvinist" to be saved. Choosing Christ and abiding in Him is a sign of being saved. Calvinism has nothing to do with that...it's a God thing, not a Calvinist thing.

[Spy Car]

If someone is TRULY saved they will not want to sin. They WILL sin, but they will not want too, nor will they live in sin. The bible tells us that if someone is living in sin that the father is not in them....they are not saved. "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." 1 John 3:9 esv

 

So if you have a "Christian" who is living in immoral grievous sin month after month after month...it's probably safe to say that they may not truly be a Christian. But that's one left for God to decide, not I.

 

How does one distinguish between a "serial" sinner (which from my understanding you are saying even the "elect" are) and one who lives in sin?

 

Aren't we all failures if we are told to "love our enemies as ourselves" and we don't? Does anyone claim to live up to that standard of perfection? And if not, don't we all "live in sin"? So how are the "elect" different?

 

Bill

[Saille]

I'm a bit confused. So if people are alredy predestined to go to Heaven......then what's the point of witnessing? What's the point of drawing new people into the church and telling them about God if they are already chosen? Could someone explain that to me?

 

Maybe the act of being the "event" that turns someone's head from sin is favored in the eyes of God, and you just have to assume that you'll never know when that's happening? PS teachers have days (or longer) when they feel they aren't reaching anyone, but they keep teaching and imbue the kids they do reach with special importance...

 

Of course, I quit teaching and came home to homeschool, so take that FWIW.

 

Melissa, I was referring to this:

 

I find so much hope in Calvinism, because it is all about God's power. I cannot believe that Jesus died for all, but some are not going to be saved, so His death was partially a failure.

 

But now that I look at it again, I think I may have misinterpreted what she was saying.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Saille

[Erica in PA]

I'm a bit confused. So if people are alredy predestined to go to Heaven......then what's the point of witnessing? What's the point of drawing new people into the church and telling them about God if they are already chosen? Could someone explain that to me?

 

The Bible teaches that salvation is through faith in Christ, and that faith comes by hearing the word of God-- God uses people to spread His Word. Election primarily deals with the fact that as we spread God's Word, it is only those whom He has called, who will respond to the gospel message-- you still need to respond to that message.

 

 

Romans 13: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.â€10

How, then, can people call on someone they have not believed? And how can they believe in someone they have not heard about? And how can they hear without someone preaching? And how can people preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful arethose who bring the good news!â€

 

[ChristusG]

Thanks for the clarification! So in Calvinism, if you are predestined to go to Heaven....then you still need someone to witness to you so that you can respond to the call? Correct? So what if a predestined person is never witnessed to.....say they live in a tribe deep in the jungles of Africa. I know that is far fetched, but I just wanted to use that so that you would know what I meant.

 

Thanks for the answers!

[Spy Car]

Romans 13: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.â€10

 

Wait, this seems to contradict the notion it all who God calls (elects) will be saved.

 

How, then, can people call on someone they have not believed? And how can they believe in someone they have not heard about? And how can they hear without someone preaching? And how can people preach unless they are sent?

 

I thought the teaching was this was all accomplished through the work of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost component of the Triune Godhead and was fundamentally not a process open to human intervention according to Reformed theology. Or do I have this wrong?