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

[mommaduck]

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

One is repentant and the other is not. No, we don't live up to the standard of perfection, but we are being sanctified after we are justified. Sanctification is an ongoing process...it's growing, changing, learning from our mistakes...but it's done by the Spirit, not of our own "strength".

[Erica in PA]

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!

 

Yep, that is my understanding. As far as the scenario that you describe goes, that cannot happen, because a person must hear the gospel and believe it to be saved. If that never happens in a person's life, then that person is not saved, and thus he can't have been one of those whom God has chosen to be saved-- God's plan cannot fail. That is why we need missionaries, and why God gave the great commission, so that the gospel would be shared throughout the world.

[Erica in PA]

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

 

 

 

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?

 

Hmmm... I think I understand what you're asking. The Bible says, "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." That is clear. But the Bible also teaches that unless God calls a person, that person will *not* call upon the name of the Lord. So only those whom God enables to believe, will believe, and be saved. There won't be anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord (i.e. puts their faith in Jesus Christ, and finds out that they aren't part of the elect. The fact that they have put their faith in Christ proves that they *are* part of the elect. If God hadn't drawn them, they wouldn't have been able to trust in Christ.

 

As for your second question...the verses that I quoted above (and there are lots of others throughou the NT) state that God's Word must be brought to people to hear, or else people cannot believe. And if they do not believe, they can't be saved. So God charges us to be obedient in sharing the gospel with the world. That is the means that He uses to bring people to Himself. Does He already have a plan as to how this will play out, and who will hear the gospel and be saved? Yes, and ultimately His will will be done. But He allows us the joy of being part of that.

[sassenach]

I didn't read the article, I'll come back to it later. I love Mark Driscoll, but I hate church/theology debates. Especially over the internet. I don't love Driscoll in a groupie way. Dh and I align with the post-modern church movement. We are church planters (not affiliated with Driscoll in any way). He's just our type of pastor. I would say that my dh and several other pastors in our lives are of that same flavor.

 

So thanks for the article Colleen. I'll see what I think of it later.

[Colleen]

I didn't read the article, I'll come back to it later. I love Mark Driscoll, but I hate church/theology debates. Especially over the internet.

 

I hear you. Notice I posted the article and haven't participated in the ensuing conversation.;)

[Melissa in CA]

 

I hear you. Notice I posted the article and haven't participated in the ensuing conversation.;)

 

Yeah, theology topics (especially Calvinism) never fail to hijack a thread. Sorry. :blush: I do try to stay out of most religious conversations, but when genuine questions are asked it's very hard to refrain from posting. ;) The topic of Calvinism (or predestination) is especially difficult because so many misunderstand it.

[Melissa in CA]

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

 

Yes, we are ALL failures. Every. Single. One. Of. Us. Which is exactly why we need a Savior. We will never, this side of heaven, be perfect sinless people....but through God's gracious workings in our hearts we can sin less and less as we mature in Christ. It is called Sanctification. Christians are all at different places in that Sanctification process, and the Holy Spirit works on each of us individually. Through God's Grace and power we actually can love our enemies. Love is not a mushy gushing feeling. Love can be shown in many ways.

 

The difference between living in sin and sinning are a bit different. When I sin, say covet my friends new car, the Lord convicts my heart...I repent and feel horrid for sinning. That repentance is a turning from the sin, a turning away from it. A person, like an adulteress, continues in her sin with no conviction in her heart. She feels it is her right to cheat on her husband, cuz, well, he's a jerk. She feels no reason to repent, no guilt at offending a Holy God with her actions. She may know what she is doing is wrong, but God means nothing to her. She is living in sin. A true Christian may find themselves in an adulterous situation, we are still human, but the conviction felt, through the working of the Holy Spirit within us, will ultimately bring about repentance.

 

I hope that makes some sense, I am finding it hard to explain properly. :confused:

 

[ETA: The elect are not immune to sin, they are just forgiven (Justified) :D.]

[Spy Car]

Yes, we are ALL failures. Every. Single. One. Of. Us. Which is exactly why we need a Savior. We will never, this side of heaven, be perfect sinless people....but through God's gracious workings in our hearts we can sin less and less as we mature in Christ. It is called Sanctification. Christians are all at different places in that Sanctification process, and the Holy Spirit works on each of us individually. Through God's Grace and power we actually can love our enemies. Love is not a mushy gushing feeling. Love can be shown in many ways.

 

The difference between living in sin and sinning are a bit different. When I sin, say covet my friends new car, the Lord convicts my heart...I repent and feel horrid for sinning. That repentance is a turning from the sin, a turning away from it. A person, like an adulteress, continues in her sin with no conviction in her heart. She feels it is her right to cheat on her husband, cuz, well, he's a jerk. She feels no reason to repent, no guilt at offending a Holy God with her actions. She may know what she is doing is wrong, but God means nothing to her. She is living in sin. A true Christian may find themselves in an adulterous situation, we are still human, but the conviction felt, through the working of the Holy Spirit within us, will ultimately bring about repentance.

 

I hope that makes some sense, I am finding it hard to explain properly. :confused:

 

[ETA: The elect are not immune to sin, they are just forgiven (Justified) :D.]

 

While it may seem like I'm just trying to be argumentative, I really am making a good faith effort to understand this.

 

I'm just not seeing the distinction between a "elect" person trying (and failing) to live a sinless (or close to sinless life as possible) and a "non-elect" person who is doing his or her best to do the same (and failing in the same measure).

 

Let's say a man has struggles with "lusting in his heart". He's not unfaithful to his wife in any "physical" sense, but he can't escape occasional carnal thoughts for other women. But he does feel bad about these thoughts and he's "repentant". Wouldn't the "elect" male in this circumstance be "living in sin" in exactly the same degree as a "non-elect" male in the exact same circumstance?

 

And certainly both a "elected" person and a non-elected person could feel shame if they were involved in an adulteress relationship, no? Either could stop the behavior if they had an attack of conscious, correct?

 

To me "sanctification" seems a distinction without a clear difference, especially since no one, according to these doctrines, is every purified in their behaviors and they never become "perfect sinless people".

 

Bill

[King Alfred Academy]

Having been a member of a PCA church for many years (even attending Mars Hill regularly in 2002) and sitting under some great teaching, the whole thing of "election" and "predestination" has never sat well with me...and to be honest, still doesn't.

 

When I questioned these issues (and yes, questions were ALWAYS welcomed) the response I received still didn't sit well. Basically I was told (and this was not by our church leadership, but by some ladies who lead bible studies and some friends) that I should be thankful that I have been chosen. I am thankful, but I don't like that He may not have called e.v.e.r.y. s.i.n.g.l.e. member of my family (dh excluded). I LOVE THEM! HE LOVES THEM! Why? It's not fair that He chose me and not them (yes, I know that He may have chosen them and they are delaying the response). And I know that it isn't fair. Nothing is fair. It is grace. But why not grace for them? It kills me that I share the gospel with them not only verbally, but in the way I live and it may be for n.o.t.h.i.n.g.

 

I know this is not something that can be answered in the thread. This is something that I have wrestled with for many years. And probably will continue to. Just needed to voice my frustrations I guess...

Edited January 13, 2009 by King Alfred Academy

[Laura in VA]

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?

 

 

:iagree:

[Erica in PA]

I understand your frustrations. I really do. For a long time, I felt the same way... when I started hearing about the idea of election, I didn't want it to be true, for some of the same reasons you mentioned here. I didn't even want to consider the possibility. But I eventually came to the conclusion, after studying what the Bible teaches about predestination and the nature of man and salvation, that this is the most accurate understanding of what the Bible teaches. I'm not suggesting that everyone who studies the Bible will agree on this, by any means. But I do think that the important thing is to study what the Bible says about these issues, and to base our theology on that. What does the Bible say about free will? About election, Etc. Because ultimately truth is not determined by what we would like to be true, kwim? I don't mean that to be snarky in any way, and I hope you don't take it that way at all. I'm just sharing my perspective, in the hopes that it might help you find resolution, either way your studies lead you.

[Colleen]

Yeah, theology topics (especially Calvinism) never fail to hijack a thread. Sorry. :blush: I do try to stay out of most religious conversations, but when genuine questions are asked it's very hard to refrain from posting.

 

No worries! I don't feel the thread was hijacked. The article did, after all, pertain not only to Mark Driscoll but to Calvinism. While I'm not up for a theological discussion, but I'll read along while you tawk amongst yourselves.:D

 

The topic of Calvinism (or predestination) is especially difficult because so many misunderstand it.

 

Yes...some might argue that Calvin himself misunderstood the subject.;)

[jejily]

Having been a member of a PCA church for many years (even attending Mars Hill regularly in 2002) and sitting under some great teaching, the whole thing of "election" and "predestination" has never sat well with me...and to be honest, still doesn't.

 

When I questioned these issues (and yes, questions were ALWAYS welcomed) the response I received still didn't sit well. Basically I was told (and this was not by our church leadership, but by some ladies who lead bible studies and some friends) that I should be thankful that I have been chosen. I am thankful, but I don't like that He may not have called e.v.e.r.y. s.i.n.g.l.e. member of my family (dh excluded). I LOVE THEM! HE LOVES THEM! Why? It's not fair that He chose me and not them (yes, I know that He may have chosen them and they are delaying the response). And I know that it isn't fair. Nothing is fair. It is grace. But why not grace for them? It kills me that I share the gospel with them not only verbally, but in the way I live and it may be for n.o.t.h.i.n.g.

 

I know this is not something that can be answered in the thread. This is something that I have wrestled with for many years. And probably will continue to. Just needed to voice my frustrations I guess...

 

 

Same here.

 

I have way more questions about this than anyone would have time to answer, and I really should do my own research, anyway. But, I have difficulty accepting the idea that God's plan of salvation wasn't for everyone. Even in the O.T., although the Israelites were His chosen people, others could call upon the Lord and become part of His flock.

 

I've always understood the "elect" to be anyone who chose to follow Christ.

[newlifemom]

While I question things frequently. I also have to stop at some point and take it on faith. I suppose if one didn't believe the Bible as inspired, holy and inerrant you might have a problem with that response.(logically speaking) So while I believe in the elect/predestination/trinity/young earth/6 literal days of creation, I doubt I will ever fully understand them. I really don't get why some are saved and some are not. I am not in Campe's(Family Radio) 'camp' where I am constantly begging God for His salvation. So I do believe I am saved. God knows I often don't follow His will(re: 10 commandments/obeying His word/ etc). Gosh, I really can't explain it further. JM Boice and RC Sproul I am not. lol. Some of it is that 'whole see through a glass darkly' stuff. KWIM? We will understand when we see Him. For better or worse. FWIW, I do not think of myself as special just very thankful.

[King Alfred Academy]

While I question things frequently. I also have to stop at some point and take it on faith. I suppose if one didn't believe the Bible as inspired, holy and inerrant you might have a problem with that response.(logically speaking) So while I believe in the elect/predestination/trinity/young earth/6 literal days of creation, I doubt I will ever fully understand them. I really don't get why some are saved and some are not. I am not in Campe's(Family Radio) 'camp' where I am constantly begging God for His salvation. So I do believe I am saved. God knows I often don't follow His will(re: 10 commandments/obeying His word/ etc). Gosh, I really can't explain it further. JM Boice and RC Sproul I am not. lol. Some of it is that 'whole see through a glass darkly' stuff. KWIM? We will understand when we see Him. For better or worse. FWIW, I do not think of myself as special just very thankful.

 

This is exactly where I am at. Except that sometimes I forget and start questioning again the things I take in faith...maybe just hoping an answer (I am content with...isn't that bad!?! UGH!) will slap me in the face. :tongue_smilie:

[Jugglin'5]

Even in the O.T., although the Israelites were His chosen people, others could call upon the Lord and become part of His flock.

 

I've always understood the "elect" to be anyone who chose to follow Christ.

 

As a Calvinist, I would say that two aren't mutually exclusive. The question really is, "Why do those who choose to follow Christ do so?" Is it because they were smarter and wiser than the rest of humanity, or is it because the Holy Spirit called them and enabled them to see the truth that they were blind to before?

[Mrs.W]

Wow, what a fascinating thread! And while this topic can sometimes become heated, I think everyone here has handled it with grace. For those who are earnestly trying to understand Calvinism, I highly recommend The Five Points of Calvinism by Edwin H. Palmer. The ladies Bible study at my church studied this book last year, and we all found it very helpful, even those who had grown up in the Reformed faith. It is not a long book, but very thorough in backing everything up with Scripture. I even have an extra copy I'd be happy to give away. I'm still trying to figure out this message board, so it would probably be better for you to visit my blog and click on the "Email Me" button if you're interested in the copy. :)

[CactusPair]

As a girl who grew up in the Presbyterian Church (and then escaped after/through marriage:auto:) I found this article delicious.:D

 

I had never heard of Driscoll or Mars Hill. Thanks for posting the article.

 

I feel like breaking out some Jonathan Edwards to go with my frozen veg. pizza now.

 

I do wonder how popular Driscoll's church would be if he dressed in a suit or khaki's and stopped swearing. Would the theology still appeal? How much of a culture's belief comes down to packaging? And though my grandmother who took me to church would be familiar with the Calvinist message, she'd be crawling out of her skin at Mars Hill bec of the environment.

 

Anyways, I'm so glad to be on the outside looking in now.

[ChristusG]

I'm curious about another aspect as well. God created man to have fellowship with God. So as God was creating people he was creating certain ones just to send to hell? And certain ones to send to heaven? So why even create the ones to send to hell?

 

I believe that we all have free will. And I also believe that God DOES know who will be going to heaven and who will be going to hell.....because he is all knowing. However, I also believe that we have free will to choose that path for ourselves.

[Elaine]

The more I think about this, the more it makes me *sad*--and I'm not sure whether it is about the author of the article, the editor who wrote the headline or the actual teaching at the church--but I doubt it is the latter.

 

Who Would Jesus Smack Down?

 

THAT is the *take-away* for whoever wrote it?

 

Yes, Jesus took on the Pharisees, and the hawkers in the temple, and those who torment children. But I hardly think that His main activity was the "smackdown". "The blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear. The dead live again." This, and the teaching to repent and to love are the hallmarks of His ministry--not the "smackdown"...which is noted largely by its being the exception to the rule.

 

I would say that Jesus TOOK the smackdown much more than delivering it.

 

In our prayers, we often call upon "the only Lover of mankind." This is not namby-pamby, soft, "whatever works for you" love, but true, holy, manly, strong--and serving, self-emptying love.

 

Smackdown.

Indeed.

 

Finally! Someone posted something that I can agree with thus saving me the trouble of thinking.;)

 

Thanks, Patty.:001_smile:

[Laura in VA]

I'm curious about another aspect as well. God created man to have fellowship with God. So as God was creating people he was creating certain ones just to send to hell? And certain ones to send to heaven? So why even create the ones to send to hell?

 

I believe that we all have free will. And I also believe that God DOES know who will be going to heaven and who will be going to hell.....because he is all knowing. However, I also believe that we have free will to choose that path for ourselves.

 

Man was created to glorify God. I cannot explain Calvinism, predestination, etc., as eloquently as others here, but I would recommend you research it. I once thought as you, but through studying the Bible, Reformed Theology and Arminianism, I have come to believe that God is Sovereign and may elect whom he chooses. He is God. I cannot wrap my feeble mind around many aspects of God, but why should I be able to?

[Spy Car]

I'm curious about another aspect as well. God created man to have fellowship with God. So as God was creating people he was creating certain ones just to send to hell? And certain ones to send to heaven? So why even create the ones to send to hell?

 

 

So he can show his wrath and make known his power???

[Jugglin'5]

So he can show his wrath and make known his power???

 

 

 

Look at you go, Bill.:lol: We've been around this block a few times before, haven't we?

[Melissa in CA]

While it may seem like I'm just trying to be argumentative, I really am making a good faith effort to understand this.

 

I'm just not seeing the distinction between a "elect" person trying (and failing) to live a sinless (or close to sinless life as possible) and a "non-elect" person who is doing his or her best to do the same (and failing in the same measure).

 

Let's say a man has struggles with "lusting in his heart". He's not unfaithful to his wife in any "physical" sense, but he can't escape occasional carnal thoughts for other women. But he does feel bad about these thoughts and he's "repentant". Wouldn't the "elect" male in this circumstance be "living in sin" in exactly the same degree as a "non-elect" male in the exact same circumstance?

 

And certainly both a "elected" person and a non-elected person could feel shame if they were involved in an adulteress relationship, no? Either could stop the behavior if they had an attack of conscious, correct?

 

To me "sanctification" seems a distinction without a clear difference, especially since no one, according to these doctrines, is every purified in their behaviors and they never become "perfect sinless people".

 

Bill

 

Bill, you have legitimate questions and I wish I could answer them adequately.:blush:

 

It all truly comes down to who is saved (regenerated, made justified in Christ, sin's washed clean, pure in the Fathers sight) and who is not saved (unregenerated, full of sin, not clean in the Fathers sight). The saved person's sins have been washed clean. All past, present, and future sins washed clean by Christ's death on the cross...their sins will not count against them. The unsaved person is without Christ, their sins will all be counted against them. They have not been justified, and regardless of how nice a person is, or how hard they try to live a moral life, without Christ they will end up in Hell and it will be their destination of choice.

 

We all live with sin, but we do not all have to live IN sin. Christian's have the Holy Spirit to guide them unto all righteousness...to help them not live in sin. Yes, if a man lusts with his eyes, he commits sin regardless of his spiritual state. The difference with a Christian and a non-Christian is that the Christian has the Holy Spirit to help him stop lusting with his eyes, or in his heart, whereas the non-Christian has but his own strength. Should they both succeed and overcome this sin, nothing really changes...the Christians sin's are still forgiven and washed clean. The non-Christian's sin will still be held against him because regardless of what he does, in Gods eyes, without Christ's payment for his sin...he is lost. If Jesus Christ is not your savior, you are lost no matter what you do or don't do. Our works do not get us into heaven...only faith in Jesus can do that.

 

Motive plays a big factor as well I think. I personally don't want to sin because I love the Lord. My motive is to please Him and Him alone because He means everything to me. A non-Christian's motive to quit 'sinning' is not to please the God of the Bible. Why would it be? A non-Christian would not repent for lusting with his eyes due to offending a Holy God, nor for sheer love for God. His motive would be of a different bent; not wanting to hurt his wife, wanting to become a better man, etc. It would not be out of love for God. Therein lies the difference between the two. They may both be trying to change, but the motive to change is for entirely different reasons.

 

Back to our main issue...

 

A truly saved person can sin, will sin, and can sometimes find themselves living in sin. But a truly saved person cannot remain living in sin for very long. Their love for the Lord and The Holy Spirit will not allow it.

 

A person who claims to be a Christian, but lives in sin without conscience, and does not care about God....is probably not elect, but deceived.

 

Aiy yi yi am I having a hard time explaining my thoughts! Did I somehow, in my roundabout confusing illogical way, answer your question? :w00t:

[please say yes! :lol:]

[Melissa in CA]

I'm curious about another aspect as well. God created man to have fellowship with God. So as God was creating people he was creating certain ones just to send to hell? And certain ones to send to heaven? So why even create the ones to send to hell?

 

I believe that we all have free will. And I also believe that God DOES know who will be going to heaven and who will be going to hell.....because he is all knowing. However, I also believe that we have free will to choose that path for ourselves.

 

Man was created to glorify God. Had He created us all for destruction that would have been perfectly within His right.

[Spy Car]

Bill, you have legitimate questions and I wish I could answer them adequately.:blush:

 

It all truly comes down to who is saved (regenerated, made justified in Christ, sin's washed clean, pure in the Fathers sight) and who is not saved (unregenerated, full of sin, not clean in the Fathers sight). The saved person's sins have been washed clean. All past, present, and future sins washed clean by Christ's death on the cross...their sins will not count against them. The unsaved person is without Christ, their sins will all be counted against them. They have not been justified, and regardless of how nice a person is, or how hard they try to live a moral life, without Christ they will end up in Hell and it will be their destination of choice.

 

We all live with sin, but we do not all have to live IN sin. Christian's have the Holy Spirit to guide them unto all righteousness...to help them not live in sin. Yes, if a man lusts with his eyes, he commits sin regardless of his spiritual state. The difference with a Christian and a non-Christian is that the Christian has the Holy Spirit to help him stop lusting with his eyes, or in his heart, whereas the non-Christian has but his own strength. Should they both succeed and overcome this sin, nothing really changes...the Christians sin's are still forgiven and washed clean. The non-Christian's sin will still be held against him because regardless of what he does, in Gods eyes, without Christ's payment for his sin...he is lost. If Jesus Christ is not your savior, you are lost no matter what you do or don't do. Our works do not get us into heaven...only faith in Jesus can do that.

 

Motive plays a big factor as well I think. I personally don't want to sin because I love the Lord. My motive is to please Him and Him alone because He means everything to me. A non-Christian's motive to quit 'sinning' is not to please the God of the Bible. Why would it be? A non-Christian would not repent for lusting with his eyes due to offending a Holy God, nor for sheer love for God. His motive would be of a different bent; not wanting to hurt his wife, wanting to become a better man, etc. It would not be out of love for God. Therein lies the difference between the two. They may both be trying to change, but the motive to change is for entirely different reasons.

 

Back to our main issue...

 

A truly saved person can sin, will sin, and can sometimes find themselves living in sin. But a truly saved person cannot remain living in sin for very long. Their love for the Lord and The Holy Spirit will not allow it.

 

A person who claims to be a Christian, but lives in sin without conscience, and does not care about God....is probably not elect, but deceived.

 

Aiy yi yi am I having a hard time explaining my thoughts! Did I somehow, in my roundabout confusing illogical way, answer your question? :w00t:

[please say yes! :lol:]

 

I so much want to say yes...but I don't think I see a difference here between plain old Evangelical thought and Reformed thought.

 

I understand the Christian idea that we all sin and only followers of Jesus have their sins forgiven. That to me is clear, theologically speaking. But I'm still not seeing how the "elect" (in the Reformed sense) aren't "living in sin" or "with sin" just as much (or little) as anyone else, elected or not.

 

Which, of course raises the question why the leading hand of the Holy Spirit wouldn't be powerful enough so that God's elect would be demonstrably superior in their morality and behavior to the rest of humanity (given their total depravity). Yet in the real world do we witness living saints walking in our midsts? People so filled with righteousness that we are awe-struck by their example?

 

I don't see it too often, to tell you the truth.

 

Thank you for the dialogue :001_smile:

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Look at you go' date=' Bill.:lol: We've been around this block a few times before, haven't we?[/quote']

 

Yea, and after a few time around I'm beginning to suspect the block is somewhat circular :D

 

Bill

[Melissa in CA]

I don't think I see a difference here between plain old Evangelical thought and Reformed thought.

 

I don't think Reformed thought and Evangelical thought differ in this area.:confused: We believe the same in regards to sin...or at least I have always thought so. Are you perhaps getting caught up in the word "elect?" Elect is synonymous with Christian. Every Christian is God's Elect. Reformed believers do not claim a superior calling than that of Evangelicals. Christian is Christian. :blink:

 

Which, of course raises the question why the leading hand of the Holy Spirit wouldn't be powerful enough so that God's elect would be demonstrably superior in their morality and behavior to the rest of humanity (given their total depravity). Yet in the real world do we witness living saints walking in our midsts? People so filled with righteousness that we are awe-struck by their example?

 

Good question! I have often asked myself that same thing. In fact just last week my dh and I were talking about this. I am not sure why the Holy Spirit doesn't just zap us and make us super saints with no inclination to sin whatsoever. I don't get it, I really don't. But I DO know that He has worked on me in amazing ways. I am not the person I was. In fact, I have told people the things I used to do and no one believes me. I am THAT changed. My dh as well, a completely different person. It's like night and day. So the Holy Spirit does work, Sanctification is happening...but in His timing, not ours.

 

As for awe-striking super saints. I've been pretty awe-struck before. There are some amazing Christians out there...but you will rarely find them in the limelight.

[Spy Car]

I don't think Reformed thought and Evangelical thought differ in this area.:confused: We believe the same in regards to sin...or at least I have always thought so. Are you perhaps getting caught up in the word "elect?" Elect is synonymous with Christian. Every Christian is God's Elect. Reformed believers do not claim a superior calling than that of Evangelicals. Christian is Christian. :blink:

 

I only use "elect" in an attempt to differentiate between Evangelical and Reformed notions of how a person is "saved". In my understanding, Evangelicals believed one is saved when one chooses to accept Jesus (God) as his or her personal savior.

 

Where the Reformed believe God chooses who he wants to be saved (through no special merit of their own..since according to the "Doctrine of Total Depravity" people are so sinful they are incapable of choosing God through "free-will"). Only through a God lead process (in the form of the intervention of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost) called "Irresistible Grace" can a person be saved. In this latter instance, man can not choose God, only God can choose an individual for "election". He saves some people (despite their lack of merit) for reasons understood by him alone and he chooses not to save the rest.

 

I'm pretty new to these doctrines (and outside the faith) so don't take my word for any of this, but this is my best understanding.

 

Good question! I have often asked myself that same thing. In fact just last week my dh and I were talking about this. I am not sure why the Holy Spirit doesn't just zap us and make us super saints with no inclination to sin whatsoever. I don't get it, I really don't. But I DO know that He has worked on me in amazing ways. I am not the person I was. In fact, I have told people the things I used to do and no one believes me. I am THAT changed. My dh as well, a completely different person. It's like night and day. So the Holy Spirit does work, Sanctification is happening...but in His timing, not ours.

 

As for awe-striking super saints. I've been pretty awe-struck before. There are some amazing Christians out there...but you will rarely find them in the limelight.

 

I fear it might be seen that I'm dumping on Christians, and that is surely not my intent. I've know lots of good-hearted (if self-admittedly imperfect) Christians, and the same would hold true of the many Jews, Muslims, and non-religious folks I've known. It just hasn't been my experience that the believers in one faith (or no faith) are (generally speaking) more virtuous, or exemplary in their behavior than anyone else.

 

If we judge a religion by the fruit, they all seem about equally sweet and sour to my taste. And personally, I would expect that if there was a "true faith" (a big if from my point of view, I will grant you), that it would manifestly exhibit it transformative power in the lives of its practitioners in ways that were so profound it could not be ignored even by the unchosen masses.

 

I have no doubt people feel improved through their faith(s). I am glad for that. But people also feel improved by running, doing yoga, meditating, taking SSRIs, going to psychologists, and all sorts of other transformational activities. So I'm a little skeptically minded when the "elect of God" don't seem a darn bit different than your average Joe. No worse, but no better.

 

If God is going to save us (or some of you) why doesn't he make us (you) into really shining examples of humanity who are redeemed in this world (at least to some degree) and not in some distant promised future? After all the sacrifice was made, no?

 

Anyway, this is my thought process, no doubt it will be appalling to some. But I'm trying to be open and honest about my puzzlements and my skepticism.

 

Bill (who wonders if he's the only one feeling like its getting a little warm in here :tongue_smilie:)

[KJB]

"There won't be anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord (i.e. puts their faith in Jesus Christ, and finds out that they aren't part of the elect. The fact that they have put their faith in Christ proves that they *are* part of the elect. If God hadn't drawn them, they wouldn't have been able to trust in Christ."

 

It was my understanding that the number of the elect was fairly small. I think I've read the number to be 144,000?

 

Is that the belief held? If so, couldn't the elect already be filling heaven? That number is just so small....

[laylamcb]

The more I think about this, the more it makes me *sad*--and I'm not sure whether it is about the author of the article, the editor who wrote the headline or the actual teaching at the church--but I doubt it is the latter.

 

Who Would Jesus Smack Down?

 

THAT is the *take-away* for whoever wrote it?

 

Yes, Jesus took on the Pharisees, and the hawkers in the temple, and those who torment children. But I hardly think that His main activity was the "smackdown". "The blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear. The dead live again." This, and the teaching to repent and to love are the hallmarks of His ministry--not the "smackdown"...which is noted largely by its being the exception to the rule.

 

I would say that Jesus TOOK the smackdown much more than delivering it.

 

In our prayers, we often call upon "the only Lover of mankind." This is not namby-pamby, soft, "whatever works for you" love, but true, holy, manly, strong--and serving, self-emptying love.

 

Smackdown.

Indeed.

 

:grouphug: Beautiful, PJ, as always. I AM a Calvinist, and I can amen that heartily.

[Erica in PA]

"There won't be anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord (i.e. puts their faith in Jesus Christ, and finds out that they aren't part of the elect. The fact that they have put their faith in Christ proves that they *are* part of the elect. If God hadn't drawn them, they wouldn't have been able to trust in Christ."

 

It was my understanding that the number of the elect was fairly small. I think I've read the number to be 144,000?

 

Is that the belief held? If so, couldn't the elect already be filling heaven? That number is just so small....

 

No, the 144,000 refers to something related to Israel in the book of Revelation, not the number of Christians there will be all through history. Jehovah's Witnesses believe something like that, but that's not the understanding of Christians.

 

I've gotten the impression that some people seem to view "the elect" as some kind of mysterious, strange group. In my understanding, it's not nearly as complex or mysterious as it might sound at first-- all it really refers to is the people who have trusted in Christ.... it's really just another way to say "Christians." Elect=Christians, that's all.

[ChristusG]

Thanks to everyone who has answered my questions! While I do not fully believe the way of a Calvinist, it is interesting to understand the aspects of it.

[Saille]

As for awe-striking super saints. I've been pretty awe-struck before. There are some amazing Christians out there...but you will rarely find them in the limelight.

 

Which takes us right back to the article!

[laughing lioness]

I haven't read everything posted so maybe this has been said. My dh has been quoted in the paper and interviewed on T.V. It is always a cr*pshoot about what actually gets aired or printed. We rarely see or read the whole story. With any big org there will be disagreements and gossip and discontent with leadership. With any amount of power there will be some corruption.

I didn't really get the Smack down thing until I read a few other posts. Seems to be to be an odd take-away.

[Saille]

Which, of course raises the question why the leading hand of the Holy Spirit wouldn't be powerful enough so that God's elect would be demonstrably superior in their morality and behavior to the rest of humanity (given their total depravity). Yet in the real world do we witness living saints walking in our midsts? People so filled with righteousness that we are awe-struck by their example?

 

To make us work/search for it?

 

In one sense, that idea isn't unfamiliar to me, b/c there are belief systems in which adherents will not offer information to you unless you ask, so I can conceptualize a God who would make hidden treasure of his elect. The search would be an end in and of itself.

 

However, there’s also this:

 

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.

 

I’m not trying to drag you (back) under the bus, Bill, but I can’t get around this. The idea that God created flawed vessels on purpose doesn’t really fix the essential problem either, at least for me. I don’t perceive this idea of God as merciful. I don’t even perceive saving the elect as particularly merciful, because it is random.

 

Are we talking about:

 

1. A merciful God, who knows ahead of time who will and who won't turn to him, and maybe even grieves, but allows humans to be called or not called

 

or

 

2. Creating humanity to be evil, destroying most of humanity and calling it self-glorification, and randomly choosing some for salvation based on no merit of their own, although they manifest meritorious behavior after you've called them.

[farmgirlinwv]

I fear it might be seen that I'm dumping on Christians, and that is surely not my intent. I've know lots of good-hearted (if self-admittedly imperfect) Christians, and the same would hold true of the many Jews, Muslims, and non-religious folks I've known. It just hasn't been my experience that the believers in one faith (or no faith) are (generally speaking) more virtuous, or exemplary in their behavior than anyone else.

 

If we judge a religion by the fruit, they all seem about equally sweet and sour to my taste. And personally, I would expect that if there was a "true faith" (a big if from my point of view, I will grant you), that it would manifestly exhibit it transformative power in the lives of its practitioners in ways that were so profound it could not be ignored even by the unchosen masses.

 

I have no doubt people feel improved through their faith(s). I am glad for that. But people also feel improved by running, doing yoga, meditating, taking SSRIs, going to psychologists, and all sorts of other transformational activities. So I'm a little skeptically minded when the "elect of God" don't seem a darn bit different than your average Joe. No worse, but no better.

 

If God is going to save us (or some of you) why doesn't he make us (you) into really shining examples of humanity who are redeemed in this world (at least to some degree) and not in some distant promised future? After all the sacrifice was made, no?

 

Anyway, this is my thought process, no doubt it will be appalling to some. But I'm trying to be open and honest about my puzzlements and my skepticism.

 

Bill (who wonders if he's the only one feeling like its getting a little warm in here :tongue_smilie:)

 

 

These are all good points Bill. Points that even Christians ask themselves. In a non-Calvanist world, some Christians believe that after God made the world He gave the world to mankind to have dominion over. He gave mankind the same 6000 years to work with as He had in creating it (6 days of Creation). Man was the god of this world. (note little g) Man gave dominion to lucifer/satan through sin. Now satan is the god of this world. So the evil that happens is through satan's dominion here on earth. God knew this would happen so He made a plan which is shown throughout the Bible to bring man back to his sinless state where he could walk/talk with God.

 

Of course, that brings in the plan of salvation through Jesus which you are aware of. Now after Jesus died and we have the power of regeneration through His blood and the power of the Holy Spirit. So why aren't Christians now perfect? I'm no scholar, but to me it's about man's free will. God doesn't want robots. He wants people to choose Him and His ways. He doesn't MAKE us do it. Just like we try to train our children through consequenses for their actions. God similarly trains us, only He has more patience. Even though Christians have the new birth and the Holy Spirit we have to train our WILL to serve Him. It's not automatic and it's not easy. This is what pleases God the most, when we turn to Him and trust Him and do what He tells us to do out of love. Then comes the rewards of seeing God powerfully working in our lives, helping others and being that light in a dark world.

 

We should all be that kind of Christian. The world would be a different place. BUT the Holy Spirit does not force himself on people. We have to choose to do what is right. In doing so we train our unregenerated flesh to serve Him. THEN we become more like Him. THEN our lives do shine. BUT we have to choose it. It will not be forced upon us. If it were easy and the cost were little it wouldn't mean so much.

 

Anyway that's my .02. Not very Calvanist. I hoped it helped in some small way to show you what some Christians believe. I hope/pray that in our lifetime we see a vast army of these type of Christians rise up and shine, and in doing so show the world who God is.

 

Lisa

[farmgirlinwv]

I’m not trying to drag you (back) under the bus, Bill, but I can’t get around this. The idea that God created flawed vessels on purpose doesn’t really fix the essential problem either, at least for me. I don’t perceive this idea of God as merciful. I don’t even perceive saving the elect as particularly merciful, because it is random.

 

Are we talking about:

 

1. A merciful God, who knows ahead of time who will and who won't turn to him, and maybe even grieves, but allows humans to be called or not called

 

or

 

2. Creating humanity to be evil, destroying most of humanity and calling it self-glorification, and randomly choosing some for salvation based on no merit of their own, although they manifest meritorious behavior after you've called them.

 

 

I understand what you're saying, but it's coming from a humanistic viewpoint. God created us to have a beautiful, perfect world living forever in peace and joy and love. WE chose to go after evil. There are consequenses for our actions. Evil and God don't mix. So God could've left us like that or destroyed us all. Instead He chose to die for us to fix our mistakes.

 

You're judging God based on your limited human thinking. God created us out of love. He made a perfect place for us out of love. WE chose evil. If we don't have a choice b/w right and wrong we are robots. Since we chose poorly God chose to help us, out of love. We can choose to serve Him or not. Still your choice. The Bible says that Jesus endured the cross for the GLORY set before Him. He knew what would come of His death and He considered it well worth it. We live in this temporal world w/ our limited thinking and we don't yet know what this glory is fully. We have some idea. Those who believe believe it's worth it. We don't have all the answers, but you should always ask questions and decide for yourself.

 

That probably didn't help much, but you know how one Christian sees it. I hope that you can figure out what you believe as well.

 

Lisa

[Jennefer@SSA]

As a girl who grew up in the Presbyterian Church (and then escaped after/through marriage:auto:) I found this article delicious.:D

 

I had never heard of Driscoll or Mars Hill. Thanks for posting the article.

 

I feel like breaking out some Jonathan Edwards to go with my frozen veg. pizza now.

 

I do wonder how popular Driscoll's church would be if he dressed in a suit or khaki's and stopped swearing. Would the theology still appeal? How much of a culture's belief comes down to packaging? And though my grandmother who took me to church would be familiar with the Calvinist message, she'd be crawling out of her skin at Mars Hill bec of the environment.

 

Anyways, I'm so glad to be on the outside looking in now.

 

I mentioned this at the start of the thread but it was at the start and has gotten buried yet I feel it is worth repeating....

 

Mark Driscoll has publicly repented of swearing. He admitted it was wrong. Another cheap shot on the part of the author of the article to paint him in the way she desires.

[PiCO]

I've been following this thread with interest. I was raised atheist, so I am always trying to understand the different sects of Christianity (usually with little luck!)

 

Anyway, from a Calvinist point of view, are atheists and other non-christians simply not among the chosen and can be left alone (not evangelized to)?

 

What do Calvinists and other reformed Christians think of the non-christians in their lives? Do they avoid them at all costs, feel sorry for them, what?

 

BTW- I do want serious answers. I see that my questions sound rather flip, but I'm not sure how else to word them. Thank you.

[mommaduck]

I've been following this thread with interest. I was raised atheist, so I am always trying to understand the different sects of Christianity (usually with little luck!)

 

Anyway, from a Calvinist point of view, are atheists and other non-christians simply not among the chosen and can be left alone (not evangelized to)?

 

What do Calvinists and other reformed Christians think of the non-christians in their lives? Do they avoid them at all costs, feel sorry for them, what?

 

BTW- I do want serious answers. I see that my questions sound rather flip, but I'm not sure how else to word them. Thank you.

 

Just wanted you to know that I plan on coming back to answer this post (but hubby is schooling kids so I can take care of the kitchen ;) )

[Erica in PA]

I only use "elect" in an attempt to differentiate between Evangelical and Reformed notions of how a person is "saved". In my understanding, Evangelicals believed one is saved when one chooses to accept Jesus (God) as his or her personal savior.

 

Where the Reformed believe God chooses who he wants to be saved (through no special merit of their own..since according to the "Doctrine of Total Depravity" people are so sinful they are incapable of choosing God through "free-will"). Only through a God lead process (in the form of the intervention of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost) called "Irresistible Grace" can a person be saved. In this latter instance, man can not choose God, only God can choose an individual for "election". He saves some people (despite their lack of merit) for reasons understood by him alone and he chooses not to save the rest.

 

I'm pretty new to these doctrines (and outside the faith) so don't take my word for any of this, but this is my best understanding.

 

 

 

I fear it might be seen that I'm dumping on Christians, and that is surely not my intent. I've know lots of good-hearted (if self-admittedly imperfect) Christians, and the same would hold true of the many Jews, Muslims, and non-religious folks I've known. It just hasn't been my experience that the believers in one faith (or no faith) are (generally speaking) more virtuous, or exemplary in their behavior than anyone else.

 

If we judge a religion by the fruit, they all seem about equally sweet and sour to my taste. And personally, I would expect that if there was a "true faith" (a big if from my point of view, I will grant you), that it would manifestly exhibit it transformative power in the lives of its practitioners in ways that were so profound it could not be ignored even by the unchosen masses.

 

I have no doubt people feel improved through their faith(s). I am glad for that. But people also feel improved by running, doing yoga, meditating, taking SSRIs, going to psychologists, and all sorts of other transformational activities. So I'm a little skeptically minded when the "elect of God" don't seem a darn bit different than your average Joe. No worse, but no better.

 

If God is going to save us (or some of you) why doesn't he make us (you) into really shining examples of humanity who are redeemed in this world (at least to some degree) and not in some distant promised future? After all the sacrifice was made, no?

 

Anyway, this is my thought process, no doubt it will be appalling to some. But I'm trying to be open and honest about my puzzlements and my skepticism.

 

Bill (who wonders if he's the only one feeling like its getting a little warm in here :tongue_smilie:)

 

Is it correct that your question doesn't have anything to do with election, per se, but basically why aren't Christians radically different from other people who are not saved? Just want to make sure before I answer.

[Saille]

I understand what you're saying, but it's coming from a humanistic viewpoint. God created us to have a beautiful, perfect world living forever in peace and joy and love. WE chose to go after evil. There are consequenses for our actions. Evil and God don't mix. So God could've left us like that or destroyed us all. Instead He chose to die for us to fix our mistakes.

 

You're judging God based on your limited human thinking. God created us out of love. He made a perfect place for us out of love. WE chose evil. If we don't have a choice b/w right and wrong we are robots. Since we chose poorly God chose to help us, out of love. We can choose to serve Him or not. Still your choice. The Bible says that Jesus endured the cross for the GLORY set before Him. He knew what would come of His death and He considered it well worth it. We live in this temporal world w/ our limited thinking and we don't yet know what this glory is fully. We have some idea. Those who believe believe it's worth it. We don't have all the answers, but you should always ask questions and decide for yourself.

 

That probably didn't help much, but you know how one Christian sees it. I hope that you can figure out what you believe as well.

 

Lisa

 

But are you Calvinist? I'm trying to understand this:

 

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.

 

This seems to me to negate free will, both in the choosing of the evil and the salvation from it.

[angela in ohio]

I've been following this thread with interest. I was raised atheist, so I am always trying to understand the different sects of Christianity (usually with little luck!)

 

Anyway, from a Calvinist point of view, are atheists and other non-christians simply not among the chosen and can be left alone (not evangelized to)?

 

What do Calvinists and other reformed Christians think of the non-christians in their lives? Do they avoid them at all costs, feel sorry for them, what?

 

BTW- I do want serious answers. I see that my questions sound rather flip, but I'm not sure how else to word them. Thank you.

 

No. God commands that we evangelize, so we do. We never know what God's plan is to use us in someone else's life, so we are always ready to jump in and talk to someone about God. :) Also, God speaks to us through prayer or the Holy Spirit and calls us to reach out to certain non-believers or in certain ways.

 

When you believe in election, unbelievers become those whom God has not called to Him (maybe just yet - we don't know who is elect.) We don't believe that we were smart enough to choose God and non-believers weren't. The only difference between you and a non-believer is that God chose to call you - there was nothing worthy or special about you to earn it. So there is no reason to feel anything but love for an unbeliever.

 

I hope that helps.

[Rose in BC]

I've been following this thread with interest. I was raised atheist, so I am always trying to understand the different sects of Christianity (usually with little luck!)

 

Anyway, from a Calvinist point of view, are atheists and other non-christians simply not among the chosen and can be left alone (not evangelized to)?

 

What do Calvinists and other reformed Christians think of the non-christians in their lives? Do they avoid them at all costs, feel sorry for them, what?

 

BTW- I do want serious answers. I see that my questions sound rather flip, but I'm not sure how else to word them. Thank you.

 

I assume everyone around me needs to hear the gospel and that God will call them into a relationship with him. This is how we operate as a family, and as a church. God calls people at different times in their lives so just because someone does not have a relationship with Him at this time doesn't mean they won't.

 

This thread has been very thought provoking and I've read with interest people's comments. I think Bill's comment about Christians not looking any different than non-christians was kind of heart wrenching for me because he's right in many ways. But then I'm reminded that it's Jesus we look to for an example of perfection not other people. We've got a long way to go but God, through the Holy Spirit, does continuously work in us.

[angela in ohio]

1. A merciful God, who knows ahead of time who will and who won't turn to him, and maybe even grieves, but allows humans to be called or not called

 

or

 

2. Creating humanity to be evil, destroying most of humanity and calling it self-glorification, and randomly choosing some for salvation based on no merit of their own, although they manifest meritorious behavior after you've called them.

 

 

Neither. Number one is a good description of a non-Calvinist belief. Number two is a misunderstanding. God created mankind perfect, but man fell. Farmgirl spoke to that, but not from a Calvinist viewpoint.

 

Is that clear as mud?

[OnTheBrink]

I've been following this thread with interest. I was raised atheist, so I am always trying to understand the different sects of Christianity (usually with little luck!)

 

Anyway, from a Calvinist point of view, are atheists and other non-christians simply not among the chosen and can be left alone (not evangelized to)?

 

No. Only God knows who's elect, people don't. I can't look at you and say, "Hey, she's an athiest, doomed to hell anyway, no need to share the gospel with her! We're called to take the gospel to ALL and God Himself is in charge of the salvation aspect.

 

What do Calvinists and other reformed Christians think of the non-christians in their lives? Do they avoid them at all costs, feel sorry for them, what?

 

Oh no, no one is "avoided." If that were true, no Calvinist would be here on this site. :) I can only speak for myself, but my feeling toward unbelievers is, where there is the breath of life, there is hope. And, going back to what I said above, no person on earth knows the intent of God in someone else's life. I would be very wrong to assume God's plan for you or anyone else based on what you say or do today. To feel sorry for someone who's unsaved is, imo, rather arrogant. To me, salvation is a humbling thing and to see someone accept Christ is a joyful thing, not a "OH cool, you're now good enough to join our elite little club" thing.

 

BTW- I do want serious answers. I see that my questions sound rather flip, but I'm not sure how else to word them. Thank you.

[Saille]

Neither. Number one is a good description of a non-Calvinist belief. Number two is a misunderstanding. God created mankind perfect, but man fell. Farmgirl spoke to that, but not from a Calvinist viewpoint.

 

Is that clear as mud?

 

You're the one whose replies I keep looking for!

 

So, man fell as Lucifer fell, because he was created perfect, but with the ability to choose to fall or not? How does that work with predestination? We can't choose to be saved because we lost the ability to choose due to the completeness of our fall?

[Melissa in CA]

I only use "elect" in an attempt to differentiate between Evangelical and Reformed notions of how a person is "saved". In my understanding, Evangelicals believed one is saved when one chooses to accept Jesus (God) as his or her personal savior.

 

From our human viewpoint we experience salvation exactly like an Evangelical. We hear a message, sermon, podcast, whatever...are convicted of our sin and our need of a Savior and choose Christ as our Lord and Savior. Our initial coming-to-Christ experiences vary, but are the same in the basic 'hear the gospel-choose Christ' framework. The only thing Calvinist's believe differently, according to the bible, is that the REASON we believe, and the REASON we decide to choose Christ, is because Christ first choose us. Do we know this before making our choice....nope. Our experience in coming to Christ is the same as that of an Evangelical. Our Sanctification process is the same as that of an Evangelical. A saved Evangelical is one of God's chosen people, one of His elect.

 

Where the Reformed believe God chooses who he wants to be saved (through no special merit of their own..since according to the "Doctrine of Total Depravity" people are so sinful they are incapable of choosing God through "free-will"). Only through a God lead process (in the form of the intervention of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost) called "Irresistible Grace" can a person be saved. In this latter instance, man can not choose God, only God can choose an individual for "election". He saves some people (despite their lack of merit) for reasons understood by him alone and he chooses not to save the rest.

 

I'm very impressed Bill! You've done your homework. ;) That is exactly what Calvinist's believe.

 

 

So I'm a little skeptically minded when the "elect of God" don't seem a darn bit different than your average Joe. No worse, but no better.

 

Just saved. :D

 

If God is going to save us (or some of you) why doesn't he make us (you) into really shining examples of humanity who are redeemed in this world (at least to some degree) and not in some distant promised future? After all the sacrifice was made, no?

 

How do you know I am not a shinning example, Bill? :lol: (just kiddin') I'm not.

 

I am not perfect and no one else walking the earth is perfect, regardless of religious preference (or chosen-ness :D). According to the bible, the one thing I am, that those other religions are not, is saved. When I die I know where I am going, and I don't have to work my butt off to get there. God did all...ALL...the work for me. My part is to choose to obey and walk with Him day by day. I am to abide with Him. And even in that, He has provided a Helper; the Holy Spirit. AND even in my walk, I am not expected to be perfect, just as obedient as I can be. My life, thankfully, is covered in Grace and God is merciful with me in my disobedience.

 

I know that Christianity is just another religion to you, and that's OK, but if you put it side by side with all the other religions of the World you will see it is different. God, the creator of the universe, the creator of YOU, loved you so much that He came down to earth in bodily form to DIE FOR YOU. I'm sorry, but that's pretty different from other religions wouldn't you say? :D Of course, if you do not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then Christianity means nothing to you; it is just another religion claiming to be the only religion. I get that.

 

You seem to look at things through a moral, not spiritual, perspective. Morality does not save. There are extremely godless people who are still moral people, but who are spiritually depraved and going to Hell. Our good works will not get us into heaven. Only through Christ Jesus do we get entrance into heaven.

 

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"~John 14:6 You can't get there through Buddha, Mohammad, or moral living...only through Jesus.

 

You also need to understand, as I am sure you do, that not all people who claim to be Christians actually are. Christianity is like the national religion in the USA. People who don't even attend church call themselves Christian. It's crazy. On Christmas and Easter our family doesn't attend church because the church is PACKED by twice a year "Christians." Would those people claim to be Christians? You bet! Are they? Well, I would say that if they only spend time with God two times a year, that it's very doubtful.

 

All that to say, please don't judge Christianity by all who claim to be believers. ;) Yes, many non-Christians believe there is a God, but the bible tells us even the demons believe and shudder....are they saved and filled with the Holy Spirit? I think not. :tongue_smilie:

 

If one truly believes something one will act upon said belief, right? For example, if I knew without a shadow of a doubt that our house would be hit with a 9.0 earthquake tomorrow, what would I do? Sit here and do nothing? Not protect my animals and children by getting some place safe. No, if I truly believed it, I would act on that belief. The same with Christianity. If you truly believe in Christ, you will act on that belief. Period. Believing something and BELIEVING something are very different. Twice-a-year Christians are not what I would call, true believers. The same could be said of those who go to church on Sunday and live like hell, cheating, lying, and stealing, the rest of the week. True belief causes a true response.

 

Anyway, this is my thought process, no doubt it will be appalling to some. But I'm trying to be open and honest about my puzzlements and my skepticism.

 

Not appalling at all. Understandably honest in fact.

 

May God open your eyes to His Truth, Bill. Hey, just think, you might be one of His chosen and not even know it...imagine that! :D

[Saille]

Oh no, no one is "avoided." If that were true, no Calvinist would be here on this site. :) I can only speak for myself, but my feeling toward unbelievers is, where there is the breath of life, there is hope. And, going back to what I said above, no person on earth knows the intent of God in someone else's life. I would be very wrong to assume God's plan for you or anyone else based on what you say or do today. To feel sorry for someone who's unsaved is, imo, rather arrogant. To me, salvation is a humbling thing and to see someone accept Christ is a joyful thing, not a "OH cool, you're now good enough to join our elite little club" thing.

 

For whatever reason, in the past I seem to have encountered bowdlerized versions of many denominations. I'm not sure I'd be looking any of this up if I weren't encountering thought-provoking posts like the one that started this thread. I learn a lot.

 

I know this board is about homeschooling, but I'm still grateful for the religious and political discussions. One of the most interesting things about homeschooling is that the movement encompasses people from such disparate walks of life. It reminds me to dwell in the possible, which seems similar to what you're saying above.