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

[Spy Car]

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.

 

I'm sorry I was out all day and unable to participate in this very interesting thread. I'd just like to echo your remarks and say how much I enjoy the education I've received, and the shared dialogue that can take place on these forums, in matters that are very near and dear to people and potentially sensitive.

 

I especially appreciate all the graciousness extended in my direction. I know I'm a bit of a relentless questioner, but that's the way I learn things and hopefully I'm not alone in becoming more understanding about the views of others.

 

Cheers all,

 

Bill

[PiCO]

I especially appreciate all the graciousness extended in my direction. I know I'm a bit of a relentless questioner, but that's the way I learn things and hopefully I'm not alone in becoming more understanding about the views of others.

 

Cheers all,

 

Bill

 

Keep asking, please! I learn so much from the answers you get.

[Spy Car]

Keep asking, please! I learn so much from the answers you get.

 

OK, if you insist :D

[laylamcb]

I'm sorry I was out all day and unable to participate in this very interesting thread. I'd just like to echo your remarks and say how much I enjoy the education I've received, and the shared dialogue that can take place on these forums, in matters that are very near and dear to people and potentially sensitive.

 

I especially appreciate all the graciousness extended in my direction. I know I'm a bit of a relentless questioner, but that's the way I learn things and hopefully I'm not alone in becoming more understanding about the views of others.

 

Cheers all,

 

Bill

 

It might not add much to the discussion, but this post made me :001_smile:. Very eloquently put and sensitive, Bill. Here's a big ol' :grouphug: for ya.

[Spy Car]

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.

 

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?

 

But did God create a "perfect" humankind?

 

In Genesis, after Adam eats from the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" God (largely validating the words of the serpent) says man has (in this act) become more like God.

 

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.

 

So if man became more like God, then he was transformed from his original state and "improved" (unless one is prepared to argue that being "like" God is a negative). And one can't be created "perfect" and them become "more perfect", can you?

 

And how can becoming more like God be considered a "Fall"?

 

If man was created without the ability to tell right from wrong he was not created as a "perfect creature", and in fact was not different than any other dumb animal, no?

 

You can't tell a cow: "you can eat this grass, but that grass over there don't eat it or you will surely die" and expect a cow to bear a moral responsibility for it's transgression. Can you?

 

You could still kill the morally-faultless cow, but since it could not understand the meaning of its act its not responsible for its demise.

 

If God didn't give man the same ability to reason and tell right from wrong, same deal.

 

And if you argue that the plain-text reading of Genesis is incorrect and man knew right from wrong prior to his fruit-eating, and through his own free-will man disobeyed God, then you would have to acknowledge that God (the potter) created beings who were prone to disobedience and following their own will.

 

And assuming this will-full disobedience is a "negative", then these beings are not "perfect" in this alternate interpretation of the creation story. Either way man is created "imperfectly" is he not?

 

And whose fault is that, if not the potters?

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

It might not add much to the discussion, but this post made me :001_smile:. Very eloquently put and sensitive, Bill. Here's a big ol' :grouphug: for ya.

 

Being a warm and fuzzy Dark Sider is blowing the whole rep :D

 

But you know I cherish you :grouphug:

 

Bill

[Michelle in MO]

But did God create a "perfect" humankind?

 

In Genesis, after Adam eats from the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" God (largely validating the words of the serpent) says man has (in this act) become more like God.

 

 

 

So if man became more like God, then he was transformed from his original state and "improved" (unless one is prepared to argue that being "like" God is a negative). And one can't be created "perfect" and them become "more perfect", can you?

 

And how can becoming more like God be considered a "Fall"?

 

If man was created without the ability to tell right from wrong he was not created as a "perfect creature", and in fact was not different than any other dumb animal, no?

 

You can't tell a cow: "you can eat this grass, but that grass over there don't eat it or you will surely die" and expect a cow to bear a moral responsibility for it's transgression. Can you?

 

You could still kill the morally-faultless cow, but since it could not understand the meaning of its act its not responsible for its demise.

 

If God didn't give man the same ability to reason and tell right from wrong, same deal.

 

And if you argue that the plain-text reading of Genesis is incorrect and man knew right from wrong prior to his fruit-eating, and through his own free-will man disobeyed God, then you would have to acknowledge that God (the potter) created beings who were prone to disobedience and following their own will.

 

And assuming this will-full disobedience is a "negative", then these beings are not "perfect" in this alternate interpretation of the creation story. Either way man is created "imperfectly" is he not?

 

And whose fault is that, if not the potters?

 

Bill

 

I guess I read this story in Genesis that God did create man to be perfect. Personally, I see the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as mankind no longer depending upon God to be their source, but their own understanding. I also think that the Tree represents a choice to mankind. So, I'm tipping my hand here as to my personal beliefs. Yes, I do believe we have a choice, and Adam and Eve clearly understood from God's direction that they were not to eat from that Tree. They disobeyed, and that represents a choice---a choice against obedience to God. I think it was C.S. Lewis who wrote something to the effect that God did not want automatons---he wanted fully mature people who would choose to obey him. Adam and Eve were created sinless, but still with a free will.

 

This may be an aside, and perhaps not directly pertinent to your question, but I also find it interesting that when God created the animals, He didn't tell Adam, "OK, Adam, this is a lion, this is a giraffe," etc. Adam was allowed to choose the names for the animals. So, I see that right from the beginning that mankind was given a degree of latitude. God wasn't controlling this aspect of His creation.

 

I understand it this way: I want to have a relationship with a friend, but I don't want them to be robotic, forced to be friends with me because they are somehow made that way. I want them to be friends out of their own free will, because they want to spend time with me. I believe God is the same way. He wants us to choose Him freely, not under constraint because we're just mindless drones or robots, but because we love and trust Him---freely.

 

I don't believe the fact that mankind has free will to be an imperfection, but rather to me represents that God wants loving relationships with people who will love Him back freely. It just doesn't seem like love otherwise---forced, robotic, automatic. And, mankind would be different than the cow, in that we are given the ability and even freedom to think. A cow cannot understand "eat this grass here, but don't eat that grass there, because you will die." No---that area of grass must be fenced off. Notice in the story that there's no fence surrounding the Tree---just a word from God, and God wanted to see if Adam and Eve could freely choose to trust and obey Him.

 

I hope my rambling thoughts make sense. I need to get back to my Latin "is, ea, id" or I'll be hopelessly lose tomorrow! I'll check back on this tomorrow.

[Karenciavo]

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.

 

Excellent post Angela.

 

To those who wonder about Hitler; only God knows if Hitler is saved. We see no fruit so we can assume the answer is no. Paul called himself the chief of sinners, he approved of the stoning of Stephen. Will you be upset to meet him in heaven?

[Karenciavo]

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

 

To me, there seems to be a disconnect there.

 

I was raised Roman Catholic and bought the first Bible I ever actually read after my conversion at the age of 27. I may have received a Bible at Communion or Confirmation, I don't remember, but I never read it and never applied the teachings. I don't see the disconnect.

[Karenciavo]

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

 

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

 

You betcha :thumbup:

[Karenciavo]

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.

 

As you often do you got to the heart of the matter.

[catalinakel]

I don't think I have the brain power or the patience to read through and thouroughly digest all that has been written here so far, but want to add my part(s). These issues matter muchly, after all.

 

The bit from Romans 9 that begins, "what if God......" is telling.

What if God did such and such and it goes against our sensibilities of what is fair, good and right. What if?

Can the created say to the Creator of All Things "uh, no, I don't think that is quite right or fair or appealing to me and my understanding of life...."

One's understanding of God as Sovereign plays into things here immensely. This is My Father's World.

Whate'er my God ordains is right.

The works of the Lord are right.

Period.

I believe what the Bible teaches about God, but I am no fundamentalist.

God saved me in a way that made me Calvinist from the get-go. I was self-centered, hedonistic and wanting anything but clear understanding of my total depravity. But I was knocked from a horse, so to speak, and the eyes of my understanding were opened by God. He caused me to believe and I began to understand his ways as I began to read the Bible for the first time at age 22. This cannot be attributed to my sincerity or to my diligence. That I am still at it 26 years later proves that He has me, that I am His. Otherwise I would have succeeded in my attempt at escape from Him years and years ago. Our God is a consuming fire. Not exactly warm fuzzies......

 

Many's the time I have questioned, complained and said, "what sort of whacked-out God kills his own child to gain the company of those such as myself..."

It makes no sense. So be it.

His ways are Perfect, though not always perfectly understood here on Earth.

And that is His perogative.

[mommaduck]

I know others have already answered, but I did say I would come back to this.

 

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!)

 

Regardless of luck, it's wonderful when people are willing to look at another faith and try to see where the person is coming from. I do this also. I have a specific shelf in our home for myths, faiths, and sects.

 

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 and no. We don't know if someone is chosen or not. Someone may start out an atheist or agnostic (or anything else) and then come to faith. We are not Gd, and therefore cannot say that one is not chosen simply because they may not be in faith at the point in time that we know them.

 

On the leaving alone part, we live our faith. That in and of itself is a "showing forth the light" of Gd. We believe the reason for the preaching of the word and evangelism is that it is simply HOW Gd ordained for a person to come. However, as a Calvinist we are sometimes accused of a lackadaisical attitude because we don't go trying to FORCE it down another's throat. We will share. We will live our life as we believe we are supposed to. But we don't believe that "getting someone to say the prayer" is what brings about salvation, nor do we feel that we have "failed" if we didn't "say enough" or "speak soon enough". We believe in Providence. Gd provides the words, the timing, and even if that person is open to it (if not, then that is also Providential). A Jewish friend and I were talking...we both agreed on something...that I can't change her heart, she can't change mine...the only person that can change either of our hearts, or redirect them, is HaShem (read the case of Pharoah in Scripture).

 

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?

I will only speak as a Reformed Christian (but my answer may vary particularly from some Calvinistic Baptists) We do not avoid non-Christians. We even listen to secular music, drink a glass of wine, and watch LOST (or any other geek show). We don't believe we are better than anyone else, simply we are sinners that happen to be saved by Grace. We believe that the phrase, "be in the world, but not of the world" does NOT mean that we hide ourselves away in little communes or ONLY associating with certain people. Now yes, as many of most faiths, we believe parents are the ones that are responsible for guiding their child's education, faith, and moral behaviour. Following in that same respect, I will not (just as I would not want others to) proselytise a person's child. If a child comes to me with a question, I will try to answer generally and honestly, but with respect to what I know of that parent, if I even know the parent. I will also/or go to the parent and inform them what their child ask, give them my answer, let them know if I answered their child already or, if not, then ask if they want to deal with this after hearing my answer or may I answer in their presence. Either way, I do not feel this is undermining anything I have to say, but rather creates a sharing point between myself and the parent, respects the parent's authority with their child, and allows the parent an opportunity to work with this information with their child (either by explaining where we agree/disagree, answer other questions this may have raised for their child, etc). And yes, I realised I just rabbit trailed :001_huh:

 

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.

 

They did not sound flippant to me. Instead, I took them as honest questions and thus why I wanted to come back and answer them :001_smile:

 

Edited January 14, 2009 by mommaduck

[PiCO]

I know others have already answered, but I did say I would come back to this.

 

Thank you, Mommaduck- I appreciate you taking the time to answer. It sounded like I would be able to be friends with a Calvinist without being "witnessed to" excessively. Your answers confirmed my theory.

 

I greatly appreciate that you do not proselytize to children. That really puts kids in a tough situation, which both my dds and I have been subjected to.

[Spy Car]

I'm still not entirely clear why "Reformed" Christians would proselytize at all (from their own perspective). If God alone (through the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost) brings people to salvation, why involve "totally depraved" humans who can't even "save themselves" in the mix?

 

Couldn't proselytizing (from a "Reformed" perspective) be seen as the beginning of a slippery-slope that could at its logical end undermine Calvinism?

Seems that way to me. What did Calvin think? He he approve of proselytizing and evangelizing?

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

Yes, it's Gd that turns the heart, but what is bringing the understanding of what it is being turned toward? The Word preached. It's just His way.

[teamturner]

I'm still not entirely clear why "Reformed" Christians would proselytize at all (from their own perspective). If God alone (through the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost) brings people to salvation, why involve "totally depraved" humans who can't even "save themselves" in the mix?

 

Couldn't proselytizing (from a "Reformed" perspective) be seen as the beginning of a slippery-slope that could at its logical end undermine Calvinism?

Seems that way to me. What did Calvin think? He he approve of proselytizing and evangelizing?

 

Bill

 

Just finished reading this entire thread! I think an important thing to remember is that we must believe and obey the whole Bible. When Jesus says in Matthew, "Go and make disciples of all nations....", which is known as the Great Commission, that is part of his word and is to be obeyed. God didn't have to use Christians to spread the Gospel, but in his grace and mercy he does and it is a blessing to those that do.

 

I think there may be a type of Hyper-Calvinism which doesn't believe evangelism needs to take place for God to bring his people to himself, but that is obviously flawed in that it ignores all the scripture has to say about evangelism.

 

When you call Christians as those that "can't save themselves" that is the truth! We only testify to the one that can save us! And while we may still be sinners, our sin will not be held against us in the day of judgement because Jesus gives us his perfect record. That is where Christians are justified. We are being sanctified here in this life and we will be made perfect like Christ (without sin) when Christ returns or calls us home.

[mommaduck]

I think there may be a type of Hyper-Calvinism which doesn't believe evangelism needs to take place for God to bring his people to himself, but that is obviously flawed in that it ignores all the scripture has to say about evangelism.

 

There is and it is. But they are very, very few and far between. In their minds, Calvin isn't Calvinistic enough and you're lost unless you have all your theological ducks in a row :glare:

[Spy Car]

Just finished reading this entire thread! I think an important thing to remember is that we must believe and obey the whole Bible. When Jesus says in Matthew, "Go and make disciples of all nations....", which is known as the Great Commission, that is part of his word and is to be obeyed. God didn't have to use Christians to spread the Gospel, but in his grace and mercy he does and it is a blessing to those that do.

 

I think there may be a type of Hyper-Calvinism which doesn't believe evangelism needs to take place for God to bring his people to himself, but that is obviously flawed in that it ignores all the scripture has to say about evangelism.

 

When you call Christians as those that "can't save themselves" that is the truth! We only testify to the one that can save us! And while we may still be sinners, our sin will not be held against us in the day of judgement because Jesus gives us his perfect record. That is where Christians are justified. We are being sanctified here in this life and we will be made perfect like Christ (without sin) when Christ returns or calls us home.

 

I think I understand this. Not an entirely easy concept to articulate, but you have done well.

 

I'm not surprised there are "Hyper-Calvinists" since such a position seems at least arguable logical.

 

But if God in his power can call people to himself why couldn't he also use that power to be his chosen sub-agents in the salvation process? This makes sense to me from a "Reformed" perspective (or the best I can approximate it in my head). Thank you :001_smile:

 

Bill

[catalinakel]

I think I understand this. Not an entirely easy concept to articulate, but you have done well.

 

I'm not surprised there are "Hyper-Calvinists" since such a position seems at least arguable logical.

 

But if God in his power can call people to himself why couldn't he also use that power to be his chosen sub-agents in the salvation process? This makes sense to me from a "Reformed" perspective (or the best I can approximate it in my head). Thank you :001_smile:

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill.

 

He does use "that power" in "his chosen sub-agents in the salvation process." scripture asks, "How can one believe in whom one has not heard?"

 

We are not told to proselytize (huh?) but to be prepared to give a reason for the hope that lies in us. We are also told to make disciples and to preach the word.....but I don't think that this is proselytizing(nor do I know how to spell the word)

 

When we live by faith, with the power of God working in us, we can't help but "bear witness" to the fact of GOD.

 

Evangelism and The Sovereignity of God by Packer(I think) addresses your questions much more thoroughly and elegantly than I.

 

I don't try to make sure that I tell everyone about Jesus (anymore...maybe I did in the beginning....) But I do seek to live fully 'abiding' in the 'branch' so that His sap is flowing in me. And I try to keep myself consciously aware of those around me to whom I might 'testify' of God's goodness as needed, or 'prompted' by the Holy Spirit. And I am reformed through and through. Plus I speak in tongues(privately....)

[Kathleen in VA]

Just wanted to say that Evangelism and The Sovereignity of God is by A.W. Pink for those who may want to search it out.:)

 

ETA: AACCKK - I looked at the wrong title at amazon - it is by J. I. Packer - sorry about that. I am sorry if I sent anyone of a goose chase.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Kathleen in VA
pure and utter stupidity :-)

[Spy Car]

What a good thread folks, thank you all so much!

 

Bill

[Christy B]

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

 

Also, in Calvanism are you not allowed to question what's being taught? Is the pastor above reproach?

 

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

 

 

Lisa, I am sad to say that in my experience, yes, there are definitely Calvinistic churches that create an atmosphere of spiritual abuse. I'm sure it's possible and present in many denominations, but the Reformed Calvinistic doctrine (with its emphasis on the authority of elders) combined with a certain approach to church government found in certain churches (namely, the refusal to join any sort of denomination) **in my experience and in my opinion** lends itself to this sort of unhealthy environment. I'm a product of such a church, and the spiritual and emotional scars run deep.

 

I will also say that when this happens -- it is because of man's fallibility, not God's. I also think this is why many people who hold these particular views (myself included) really prefer the term "doctrines of Grace" to the term "Calvinism". Calvin himself is most emphatically not the source of truth nor should he be the recipient of worship; Calvinism is a handy academic sort of term that nicely sums up an entire theology. I sincerely wish we could come up with a better "label".

[Spy Car]

I sincerely wish we could come up with a better "label".

 

There's always "Dark Side" :D

[Kathleen in VA]

Lisa, I am sad to say that in my experience, yes, there are definitely Calvinistic churches that create an atmosphere of spiritual abuse. I'm sure it's possible and present in many denominations, but the Reformed Calvinistic doctrine (with its emphasis on the authority of elders) combined with a certain approach to church government found in certain churches (namely, the refusal to join any sort of denomination) **in my experience and in my opinion** lends itself to this sort of unhealthy environment. I'm a product of such a church, and the spiritual and emotional scars run deep.

 

I will also say that when this happens -- it is because of man's fallibility, not God's. I also think this is why many people who hold these particular views (myself included) really prefer the term "doctrines of Grace" to the term "Calvinism". Calvin himself is most emphatically not the source of truth nor should he be the recipient of worship; Calvinism is a handy academic sort of term that nicely sums up an entire theology. I sincerely wish we could come up with a better "label".

 

Christy,

 

I totally agree with using a term other than "Calvinist" and also prefer the phrase "Doctrines of Grace." I go to a Sovereign Grace Baptist Church - have for 23 years. Our church does not like the term "reformed" because we believe God has always had at least a remnant of true believers - no reforming needed, just saving. Our church government is democratic (run by a consensus of the congregation) - not presbyterian (run by a few men). We believe in believer's baptism by immersion, not sprinkling babies (don't want to open that can of worms - just want to state how we differ from most "reformed presbyterians"). All that to say that there are many folks who believe in the "Five Points of Calvinism" who do not necessarily agree with everything Calvin taught. They are the doctrines of grace because they are the doctrines of the God of the Bible. Calvin was just blessed to have articulated them in a precise, succinct way.

 

 

Bill,

 

The Dark Side works here, I suppose, but it is so bright on the Dark Side - it's odd really.:D

[Christy B]

There's always "Dark Side" :D

 

Ahem.

 

Indeed.

 

But see, the thing is --

 

You know what --

 

I'm just not going to touch that one. ;)

[Spy Car]

Bill,

 

The Dark Side works here, I suppose, but it is so bright on the Dark Side - it's odd really.:D

 

Let me give you a little insight into my sense of humor.

 

One of the funniest thing I've come across in years (and it still provokes chuckles every time I think about it)...and perhaps only you Reformed folks may get the "joke"...but when I found out the "Dark Side" Social group here on WTM was by "invitation only" I laughed so hard I almost busted a gut :D

 

Bill :001_smile:

[Kathleen in VA]

Let me give you a little insight into my sense of humor.

 

One of the funniest thing I've come across in years (and it still provokes chuckles every time I think about it)...and perhaps only you Reformed folks may get the "joke"...but when I found out the "Dark Side" Social group here on WTM was by "invitation only" I laughed so hard I almost busted a gut :D

 

Bill :001_smile:

 

I've smiled broadly over that myself. I mean, how apropos and really, could we have it any other way? We walk what we preach, brother!:D

[Spy Car]

I've smiled broadly over that myself. I mean, how apropos and really, could we have it any other way? We walk what we preach, brother!:D

 

One of the few things that's struck my funny bone as much, was back in the seventies, when on the week Gladys Knight & the Pips broke up, Saturday Night Live booked "the Pips".

 

And without their "lead" they sang the background parts to "Midnight Train to Georgia".

 

World.....mine....his,

 

Woo Hoo :D

 

But I digress :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[mommaduck]

Let me give you a little insight into my sense of humor.

 

One of the funniest thing I've come across in years (and it still provokes chuckles every time I think about it)...and perhaps only you Reformed folks may get the "joke"...but when I found out the "Dark Side" Social group here on WTM was by "invitation only" I laughed so hard I almost busted a gut :D

 

Bill :001_smile:

 

:lol:

[catalinakel]

One of the few things that's struck my funny bone as much, was back in the seventies, when on the week Gladys Knight & the Pips broke up, Saturday Night Live booked "the Pips".

 

And without their "lead" they sang the background parts to "Midnight Train to Georgia".

 

World.....mine....his,

 

Woo Hoo :D

 

But I digress :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

 

Bill, somehow I just knew that you watched Saturday night live in the seventies.......leaving......leaving on a midnight train.....ooo-ooo, aaah-aaah

[angela in ohio]

Let me give you a little insight into my sense of humor.

 

One of the funniest thing I've come across in years (and it still provokes chuckles every time I think about it)...and perhaps only you Reformed folks may get the "joke"...but when I found out the "Dark Side" Social group here on WTM was by "invitation only" I laughed so hard I almost busted a gut :D

 

Bill :001_smile:

 

That would be my doing. :D (calling it Dark Side and the invitation only group...) .I never thought about the humor, although the irony of "Dark Side" was the point (there is a certain, "Ewwww, it's a Calvinist," thing we deal with, you know.)

 

There is also a secret handshake that was not my invention, but I can't remember who emailed it to me??

[Spy Car]

That would be my doing. :D (calling it Dark Side and the invitation only group...) .I never thought about the humor, although the irony of "Dark Side" was the point (there is a certain, "Ewwww, it's a Calvinist," thing we deal with, you know.)

 

There is also a secret handshake that was not my invention, but I can't remember who emailed it to me??

 

Well then I have you to thank Angela, because (and I swear it's true) anytime my spirit needs a lift...I think..."invitation only". Have a hearty laugh, and feel better. :D

 

Bill

[Jenn in Mo]

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?

 

Here's where it gets sticky for me. Created perfect? But perfect doesn't screw up. Eating the no-no fruit and bringing a curse to all mankind was a major screw-up. Created ignorant? I get this. Like my 3 year old happily running around the house naked, unaware that there is anything that could be wrong with it.

 

But to say that God created them perfect AND gave them a choice, and the need to save a few elect didn't arise until they had made a poor choice doesn't back up the all-knowing sovereign description of God. But to say He planned the whole thing from beginning to end, predetermining who would be born either for heaven or hell before the earth was even created doesn't back up the loving description of God either.

 

I know, I know:

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

 

But WHY did He want to show this power? For whom? The people He had already chosen to love Him? He created millions of people to be die an eternal death so that the people who already loved Him could point and say "Thanks for saving me from that"?

 

I'm not being facetious. I'm trying to flesh this out for myself. I keep running into this dark side thing and I'm terrified it's true. I am trying to wrap my brain around it.

 

My whole life, I've believed that God created us and was AWARE of the choices we would make, but allowed us our choices....grieving through many of those choices and always making a way whether we chose that 'way' or not. When I read "foreknew" I have always interpreted it to mean "was aware of" not "determined it for us." To say that He did write the entire story before putting it into motion means that He wrote it all, right? I mean ALL. He wrote the murders? The molestations? The abuse? Our perfect God wrote evil into the story?

 

My head hurts.

 

It's been a slow wrestling and I will continue to wrestle until I figure it out.....but I keep hiding from it, only investigating so far. I have at least accepted that I may not be able to wrap my brain around all of it and that this is okay. I have accepted that God is God and His ways are not my ways and it's not up to me to determine fair. To go further than this makes me homesick for my cave. My nice, uncomplicated cave. I left it a couple years ago and have felt unstable in my footing ever since.

[lionfamily1999]

Here's where it gets sticky for me. Created perfect? But perfect doesn't screw up. Eating the no-no fruit and bringing a curse to all mankind was a major screw-up. Created ignorant? I get this. Like my 3 year old happily running around the house naked, unaware that there is anything that could be wrong with it.

 

But to say that God created them perfect AND gave them a choice, and the need to save a few elect didn't arise until they had made a poor choice doesn't back up the all-knowing sovereign description of God. But to say He planned the whole thing from beginning to end, predetermining who would be born either for heaven or hell before the earth was even created doesn't back up the loving description of God either.

 

I know, I know:

 

 

But WHY did He want to show this power? For whom? The people He had already chosen to love Him? He created millions of people to be die an eternal death so that the people who already loved Him could point and say "Thanks for saving me from that"?

 

I'm not being facetious. I'm trying to flesh this out for myself. I keep running into this dark side thing and I'm terrified it's true. I am trying to wrap my brain around it.

 

My whole life, I've believed that God created us and was AWARE of the choices we would make, but allowed us our choices....grieving through many of those choices and always making a way whether we chose that 'way' or not. When I read "foreknew" I have always interpreted it to mean "was aware of" not "determined it for us." To say that He did write the entire story before putting it into motion means that He wrote it all, right? I mean ALL. He wrote the murders? The molestations? The abuse? Our perfect God wrote evil into the story?

 

My head hurts.

 

It's been a slow wrestling and I will continue to wrestle until I figure it out.....but I keep hiding from it, only investigating so far. I have at least accepted that I may not be able to wrap my brain around all of it and that this is okay. I have accepted that God is God and His ways are not my ways and it's not up to me to determine fair. To go further than this makes me homesick for my cave. My nice, uncomplicated cave. I left it a couple years ago and have felt unstable in my footing ever since.

I read somewhere that life can be compared to a sonnet. There is a definite form, rules, things that will definitely happen, but what is done within those boundaries are up to the poet, or the person whose life it is. IOW, while you may be destined to live in DC, whether you live in NW or SE, is up to you. Whether you have a mansion, or a refridgerator box, is up to you.

 

I've put a lot of thought into the idea, God knows all, he knows all outcomes, but we were blessed with 'freedom.' If time is not looked at as linear, rather as a collection of moments, like bubbles, this could make more sense. Bubbles can join together and create a bigger bubble. Now, supposing that every possible moment that ever was, would have been, or will be, or is, are all floating around and only those moments that 'happen' get to join into the big bubble. Then, all those other moments, the possibles, the would have beens, are all floating around and popping and what have you, but it's only the moments we choose that get to join our reality. God knows what's in all those bubbles, he blew them, right? So he knows all things that are, were, could have been, and might be. He also knows us, our nature, so he knows which bubbles we'll most likely choose, but the other bubbles are there for the taking.

 

Anyway! It makes sense to me. Lol... Saw you were trying to kill this thread and decided I couldn't let you do it ;)

[Jenn in Mo]

LOL - thank you, Julie. I thought perhaps it was an incurable plague.

 

Much to chew on. I'm a visual learner, so this is a picture worth thinking about.

 

Thanks!