Help, Mom! There are Arminians Under My Bed!
First, let me make an open confession.
I’m a Calvinist.
My theology would be considered “moderate” Calvinism by those who think they know how to meter these things.
My study room looks like a shrine to John Calvin and J.I. Packer.
The best week of my life was spent in Geneva.
My best birthday present was a tossup between the trip to Geneva and a phone call with the esteemed Dr. Packer.
I’ve read the complete Institutes, Curt Daniels’ “History and Theology of Calvinism” and listened to all 75 lectures that accompany the volume more than once.
My library is large and filled with 500 years of historic Calvinist thought and I’ve studied them all for a couple of decades.
To make things worse, I enjoyed doing all of the above.
I preach and teach with a Calvinistically informed view of the Scriptures.
I hate this book.
We have to start with the title…and we could end there as well.
If someone had replaced the word “Arminians” with the word “Calvinists” the wailing would have been heard as far as Geneva and justifiably so.
Whenever we use the name of another tradition as an epithet we are saying something about the tradition we hold and the God we claim to worship and what is heard glorifies neither.
While some will claim that the title is an attempt at humor, the humor would undoubtedly be lost on you if it was your tradition being mocked.
The fact that our tradition has been scorned and ridiculed does not give us a license to do likewise…it should compel us to model something far better.
The book itself tries to exposit the ‘five points of Calvinism” through the literary vehicle of a child explaining his nightmares to his mom.
In doing so it does what Calvinists most often object to having done to us…it presents a caricature of Arminianism without regard for the best of its theology.
They do have some good theologians on their side, you know…
The caricatures are written with the smug assurance and arrogance that we are so often accused of and we all claim not to possess.
On that basis alone, we should rebuke this work.
I won’t be reading this to my son…I’m not concerned with him growing up to be a Calvinist, I want him to grow up to love Christ and to love and respect all of His kids in all the traditions they hold to.
To my Arminian brethren, I offer a heartfelt apology from this Calvinist to you.
May we learn to speak to each other with the love and respect a sovereign, loving God expects of all those who claim Him.
I feel the need to leave a little comment here: snort, snort
JD Hall? Sounds like a place where adolescent lawbreakers cool their heels. 😉
fill…that was funny. 🙂
Fils #3, haha!
“I won’t be reading this to my son…I’m not concerned with him growing up to be a Calvinist, I want him to grow up to love Christ and to love and respect all of His kids in all the traditions they hold to.”
“I want him to grow up to love Christ and to love and respect all of His kids….” A-freaking-men…. amen amen…… The older (and grumpier) I get, the more I am weary of church cultural divisions. I want Jesus, not church.
The only time a title like that would be excusable was if it was an in-house joke from one Arminian to another. I can makes jokes about my family to my family that no one else could get away with. Kind of like Michael and some of his like minded friends on his blogs.
Boy, I innocently post a link on another thread because I find something so terribly ridiculous that it is humorous (and yes I was judging the book by its cover) and it riles up all this commotion. I even joked a few comments later about Michael doing a review on the book. I must be a prophet. 🙂
good one, filbertz. I want more. MORE!
I’ll blame you… 🙂
Some commotion wants to be riled up, Kevin. What is the plural of commotion?
I’ll take the blame just as long as you don’t give me any credit for that book because I don’t want to have any association with that “monstrosity”. 🙂
It wouldn’t be the PP without some riled commotion (the plural kind). 🙂
Is that pan riled or spit grilled? I’m making smoked tri tip for dinner.
I think Kevin H has worked a deal for commissions with that author..
(sort of like the one MLD and I have) 🙂
On of the four star reviews I laughed for about 15 minutes.
“By B. Ditto “bditto39″
Amazon Verified Purchase(What’s this?)
This review is from: Help, Mom! There are Arminians Under My Bed! (Kindle Edition)
We bought this for our three boys, Beza, Calvin, and Van Till! They loved every minute of this book! Buying this book will root my children in a holy fear of the Arminian heresy!!! The joy they got out of this book made me almost as happy as when little Calvin started quoting the Institutes, little Van Till argued for the existence of God by assuming He existed, and little Beza threw rocks at that Methodist kid in his class! I know that God has predestined them to great things!!! I am so proud of my three little supralapsarians!!!””
I’m surprised Calvary Chapel hasn’t written, “There Are Calvinists Under My Bed!”
Having spent 40 years of my life in Arminian circles, this book does make me laugh to myself but your are right, this is an insensitive way to treat other believers in Christ. It isn’t how I would want my children to learn to treat someone with different perspectives.
We only limit our understanding with these attitudes. I believe someone will learn to appreciate reformation theology the more they know about the rest of the church and the varying perspectives we hold as the one body of Christ.
I thought that was funny as well…
As an Arminian, I can only say one thing… I don’t fit under beds. 🙂
This can be nothing more than a gag gift from one hyper TULIP totin’ judgemental extremist to another. Not that I really noticed of anything.
I was going to put a line in there that I would rather Trey found you under the bed than the author, but it came out really weird. 🙂
I do think Roger Olson got into my refrigerator once though…
Brian that was funny, good satire.
Yeah, that’s pretty funny brian.
Help, Mom! There’s a giant sar chasm under my bed! It’s chock full of irony.
Michael – Your last sentence nailed it – love and respect.
But I can tell you that you would not win any brownie points with JD or his ilk. By saying you are moderate, you have identified yourself as not measuring up. You might as well be an Arminian. You have serious doctrinal issues and they might even go as far as to question your salvation. I’m basing this on what I have personally experienced with these kinds of folks.
I’m aware that I’m not going to be embraced for this.
I haven’t been in a long time…those guys don’t like my ecumenicism either and find that most offensive.
I’m not real popular anywhere but my house and that’s if I’m the only one home. 🙂
The yucky feeling I have right now must be what Arminians feel when they listen to Dave Hunt criticize Calvinism
I just put my youngest daughter to bed and I’m happy to report that there weren’t any Arminians under her bed. Unless, of course, Elmo is an Arminian. I’m not really familiar with his theological persuasion. 🙂
Bizarre. We, His People, are a bizarre lot.
I just dropped Zach off at camp, and here is one of the biggest things that caught my attention about this camp: they seek out, assist, facilitate, beg for, ask, delight in…diversity. They bring kids from all over the place, from low-income, from wealthy areas…black, white, latino, etc. They want to have a diverse mix because they want these kids to see that God is in their midst when their midst is colorful and diverse.
They love Jesus…they want to see these kids love Jesus. They are intelligent and know what they believe…and they are doing some pretty great things. If they found a “whatever” under their bed they’d pull him out and make him eat some nasty youth group inspired food and then they’d love of him.
Glad my boy is with them for a week.
I also have to admit that more often than I’d like I want to just be with those who think just like me. Good to have such a blatant reminder of how obnoxious that can be!
the only not “A” grade I received at CCBC (let’s not dwell on time I can’t get back, ‘kay?) was from a teacher who downgraded me to a C- because my paper on 1st John denied the sovereignty of God – yar, there be Calvinists and those who esteem Dwight Pentecost at ye olden CCBC – so a children’s book doesn’t give me an idealogical wedgie much.
Isn’t it just God’s will that there IS/Would Be an Arminian under the bed? A Jesus Conference guy under the bed is way scarier. All those different colored beads rattling around. Weird noise, man.
Like vampires and garlic, those tulips won’t stop an Arminian. Straw, man. That’s what gets the Arminian every time. Straw, man.
@30, my ‘tulip’ reference was to the con queso book cover. Tulips on the night stand.
I want him to grow up to love Christ and to love and respect all of His kids in all the traditions they hold to.
It’s OK to belong to a particular tribe in Christendom. In a lot of ways, that’s where the action is. But to disrespect other traditions or think one’s is the only way and the others are either “out” or second class…well, to me that’s the spirit of antiChrist, not of Jesus Christ.
As an Arminian I find the title funny. I think that Arminians usually have better senses of humor than Calvinists 🙂
My problem with Arminius is that he was too Calvinist. Read the guy. He’s pretty Calvinist…
I’m a big picture thinker and this verse resonates with me: 1 Corinthian 3;4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.”
In all fairness I listened to a few of Pastor Halls sermons on his website, they were actually quite good, and you know for me thats saying alot.
One thing I really like about your blog is your tolerance for others who do not hold the same opinions or theology as you do. Many blogs will not even allow dissenting opinions, and if they do, it quickly escalates into a slugfest of Sunnis and Shiites (figuratively) getting ready to blow-up each other’s Mosques.
I can’t think of anything more boring than a bunch of people respouting the same things over and over.
I enjoy and learn from the diversity here.
#36 – Brian, isn’t that hilarious? Gary is responsible for some of those titles. I have a blog reader who put that together. I love it 🙂
Help! There’s an antinomist dancing on the ceiling! I dunno…best I could come up with
church planting seminar coming up, what do you think?
Elmo is obviously a charismatic of the Toronto persuasion…
Coming to a serious blog near you. Fall down in the spirit and giggle Elmo.
Muff @38, welcome to the best of PxP. I’ve been lurking here for almost 7 years. I mostly post on the prayer threads, simply because that is where God has called me.
I found this place because of an article that was posted in the newspaper, I would get up in the morning and read the night crews posting, and think to myself, can Christians say that. They really help me to pull the stick out of my hind quarters.
As I was leaving my over authoritarian jacked-up church, this place was a life line straight to the Savior for me. It is real, it is raw, and it is the real deal, when allowed to follow a natural flow of conversation and debate.
I’m really digging what I am hearing from some of the transfers from JA blog.
I dont know why people dont realize that more often.
When I first came here, it was to straighten out Michael from his godless Calvinism.
Now I work here…
Are you taking shots at a CC byproduct?
That is very cutting edge on apologetics, can you name a current teaching or teacher that is teaching false doctrine? Not one 20 years old.
If you understood Q’s comment bring me what you’re having…
Why can’t Steve answer questions directed to him, are you a Steve apologetic? Is it an attack on you? What am I missing?
He just comes in and cleans up?
It’s a blog.
It’s my blog.
We all see and comment on everything else that’s written.
Your comment makes no sense, care to clarify or do you just want to get chippy?
Steve is welcome to answer if he can figure out what the hell you’re talking about better than I can.
I probably am a bit chippy, It is not directed to you.
I like Steve.
Steve is a friend.
I understand that some people can’t be friends with Calvary Chapel pastors and want to incite something every time one of them posts.
That’s not going to happen here anymore.
If Skip or Chuck, or Bob or one of the other guys who deserve it show up, then by all means, fire away.
I will too.
I’ll be in front, so don’t hit me.
It is obvious, I think, that I do not agree with you on everything, but I am thankful for the light you shined on the Albuquerque deal and other things.
Not sure on how you moderate, but it is your blog, thanks for reminding me again.
I think I’ll go tend my vineyard. Now where did I leave that?
My point is that Steve Wright takes a shot at an easy target. If you cant’t point out a current one you probably are one, So can he point out one?
You go ahead and then Steve can hit clean up.
I see a joke with an Elmo doll.
How in the world do you stretch that to him being a false teacher?
It was funny.
Steve pointed wrote “Toronto persuasion”.
What does that mean? That is a CC byproduct. 20 years old.
I like it when Pastor Elmo tickles my forehead. Tickle me, Elmo.
I know Steve.
I know how his church is set up, how his board works, and how his flock interacts with him.
There is absolutely nothing there to criticize.
He’s a damn good pastor and family man.
Would you prefer that I made up some offense and slimed him because he’s affiliated with some people I don’t like?
Are you aware that my own pastor (and my sons pastor) is CC?
He takes excellent spiritual care of both of us…and doesn’t give a damn whether any of his peers care.
If you have a problem with that, tough stuff.
Toronto was a CC byproduct?
The guy told a joke Q…get over yourself.
Toronto was an offshoot of the Vineyard movement…not CC.
I watched this movie “Equilibrium” its fairly syfy near future society that makes any type of sentimentality, beauty, love, anger basically any emotion punishable by death. It really penalized vile feelings like love, joy, appreciation of pets and paintings, etc. It was sort of like 1984 or Fahrenheit 451. As many here know I have struggled with emotions, ie basically they are extremely sinful and a slap in the face of God and should be totally suppressed for the Glory of God. Emotions are so inherently disordered. I no longer believe this but I must say I still carry around some of the baggage.
The question wasn’t directed towards you, I thought.
The “question” was inane and it was bait for you to start an unnecessary quarrel with someone you don’t know.
I’m not having that crap anymore.
I’m taking back the PhxP…and those who don’t like where I’m going can leave.
Other than the last 20 posts since Q showed up, does anyone else notice that about half the prior posts were all made in humor and jest, and most of the other half were talking about what a great blog and great host we have here.
Some people can’t stand to see either take place.
Wimber was thrown out of CC for far less than what Toronto was.
Come to hit clean up.
Steve brought up Toronto.
That’s a fact…but as I said it won’t be tolerated.
We can have spirited disagreements and debates but this isn’t going to be a scorched earth blog anymore.
Ok Second cousin once removed.
You have one more post to make a succinct, comprehensible comment and then you’re done.
No one is dominating this space in this fashion anymore.
“Other than the last 20 posts since Q showed up,”
Like if it wasn’t for me this is just a real peaceful blog.
Peeps were laughing. They would want us to laugh along.
It’s not a matter of “peaceful”.
It’s a matter of intelligent, honest, and responsible.
I never saw that movie. Did you see THX1138?
“and those who don’t like where I’m going can leave”
Gary to his vineyard. Pretty funny stuff Gary.
Me to moderation.
Where are you going Michael?
Looks like 29 of the first 46 posts contained jokes or were responses to jokes. Q showed up at 47.
I made exactly 2 of those posts. Both in response to Kevin H. – so as was said earlier, we can all blame Kevin. (That too was a joke)
I don’t know you Q but I’m trying to be lighthearted. I admit I get silly when I’m real tired. If you were a part of the Toronto blessing well I don’t know what to say. I’m kinda new here but I can say with the moderator that Steve Wright isn’t a mean guy.
Are you the enigmatic Q? maybe I better behave.
We’re going back to where we once were…when men weren’t judged by their “affiliation” but by their lives and ministries.
We’re going to deal with bad guys with documentation and warnings when necessary no matter what denomination they belong to.
We’re going to welcome all who want to be a real part of the discussions here…and eliminate those who just want to use this as their own blog to spit at people on a continual basis.
We’ve started to see old friends start to return and I want everyone to feel comfortable interacting here, even if it gets a little hot at times.
Did Steve answer the question, no.
He does not have to, just saying, is he avoiding the question?
You’re fine…you’ve added some levity here and people are enjoying your posts.
@ 85 That is another reason I appreciate you.
Ok. Glad to know.
Gary, probably difficult to understand for some, maybe say a lot with few words.
I’m going to bed.
I’m not going to moderate you because I sense something better about you than what I’ve seen tonight.
There is obviously a lot of pain and unresolved issues at play that I would probably empathize with if I knew them.
Think about what I’m trying to do here…and know that Steve isn’t the one who wounded your soul.
I try to do that too. A man of few word.
Were you involved in Toronto Q?
No, could’t be more against it.
It seemed like the Elmo video really offended you.
Michael says someone wounded your soul. Don’t hit the other patients here.
Michael is correct, Steve has not injured me directly, but his comments are reminiscent. Like instead of answering a question directly he attempts to persuade the crowd against me.
I would call it for what it is but Michael gave me license and I’ll leave it for now, so I’m calling it a night also
I decided to summon my inner Jack Chick and watched a bunch of end time movies online, this was a big ticket item back when I first became a Christian, the one with the bad Russian accent cutting off the head of a little kid was the real “winner”. In many of the movies the little kids and babies are rapture, in some not so much, the unregenerate babies and children are not and they take on a sort of roll like the little kids in Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ”. He banked over a 1/2 billion on that one good on him. I cant stand the movie myself but I did write a letter of support when Mr. Gibson fell in disrepute and told him there was grace out there for him. You know when I went to watch The Passion the first thing that popped into my mind was Anne Catherine Emmerich. I thought ug, and the film bore that out. Of course like much of the literature it is in disrepute but the writings of Clemens Brentano did play a part in the writing of The Passion. My point end time rhetoric is horrid, makes lousy movies, and messes up the gospel. I remember so many nights of me waking up in cold sweats thinking I was left behind, and I would take the mark and betray Christ or I would get my head cut off and still betray Christ. None of my dreams ever, not once ended with me actually standing up for Christ, that was not an option, something I agree with to be honest.
First of all, you will note there are a couple of hours between my posts – and that I showed back up after you and Michael had gone back and forth for multiple posts. So may I suggest that before declaring me guilty of dodging questions and calling out Michael as my apologetic for my “silence”, you at least wait until I am online to see them.
Now, Kevin wrote something I found funny. “I’m happy to report that there weren’t any Arminians under her bed. Unless, of course, Elmo is an Arminian. I’m not really familiar with his theological persuasion”
Isn’t that funny? Especially in a thread where Roger Olson is in Michael’s refrigerator, Bill Kinnon can’t fit under beds, Brian’s posting that funny review, Gary’s riffing all over the place, add in Rob, filbertz, Tundra, crucifiED, Hopkins…
So, in the spirit of levity of the thread, and in response to Kevin who is a friend, and because when I think of Elmo I think of the tickle me Elmo doll, I find an old Youtube commercial for that toy showing everyone laughing and shaking. That’s all.
I don’t know how you can’t see that.
I feel pretty bad for you though that you can’t…and even worse for you that you somehow think I have both the desire and power to “persuade the crowd against me”
A few of the more important, no the most important aspects of the left behind series, “The novels have sold more than 65 million copies and exceeded $1 billion in sales”. That alone justifies them and means God blessed and preordained them, that is more sure then any type of prophecy because “Profit see” is far more important the any type of divine prophecy. Good news Nicolas Cage will be doing the remake, much better choice Kirk Cameron, he is painful to watch, but I did love him in the movie Fireproof, I think Mr. Cameron actually believes all the tripe. He will pay big time and they will take him out if he falls, even one little time. With a holy vengeance. If the 990’s are correct Mr. Cameron seem to collect around 200K with is Way of the Master gig. Again good on him, I wish I could bank that, trust me I am jealous and also ashamed of being jealous. Of course those figures could be wrong so it is just what I found on line.
Dont get me wrong and I mean this, never, and I mean never would I ever disagree with someone making bank on a good idea or a good angle, it is what makes America great, That is not sarcastic at all, if they can rake it in all the better. I mean I was touched a few times by the left behind series both movies and books, but when I followed them to their “logical” conclusion (which there is none from what I can see) I wanted to sand paper my eyebrows off.
Something I am ashamed of, back in the 80’s I believed all this, and ordered my life to it. I was stupid and that is being nice and I am ashamed of myself. I hold no ill will to those that marketed this because religion is always a buyer be ware type exchange. It is all on me and I accept that. It is pathetic that I fell into that hole but I had it coming. I still think Jesus will come, I rarely think He will come for me, other then to get even, but I do think He will come.
Another late night confession I struggled with Newtown I really did, I understand God is working out His Holy eternal wrath but I did not get how some 20 kids figure into that. No offense but maybe He is a bad shot, but we will move past that. I get the idea God can take out what ever demographic He sees fit with impunity and I should not have an issue with that, I do but I chalk that up to me being an apostate. I read this article and it crushed me, goes to show what a whip I am, a real man, water off a ducks back. That is not sarcastic, that is what I get from modern evangelicalism, sentimentality like grief,frustration, loss and other such vile emotions have no place for those following the prince of peace. Well call me stupid but that makes no sense.
This article made me weep which adds to my apostasy, I get it should be water off a ducks back, and even that is to much fuss but I cant. I cant even repent of feeling bad and feeling sick about it. From the cheep seats it really is a very strange religion it really is.
Well it is a new day so I guess I can reply.
“So may I suggest that before declaring me guilty of dodging questions and calling out Michael as my apologetic for my “silence”, you at least wait until I am online to see them.”
I would have waited, Michael jumped in as he has before, so it led to a further conversation.
It’s like a doubles match, I just did bring a partner.
Did you answer, no. Still waiting.
“I feel pretty bad for you though that you can’t…and even worse for you that you somehow think I have both the desire and power to“persuade the crowd against me”
ya empathy seems like your strong point. Thanks. Real shepherds heart.
But you are trying to persuade, not saying you did, your just trying, I think you do it because it probably works, it’s deflection.
Does your congregation read what you posts?
I’ll check back to see if you answer or just use more changing the subject routines.
Q, what is your problem? Steve explained he was commenting on a humorous thread and you jump all over him.
If you have been hurt by others, don’t use it as an excuse to attack someone who had never done any harm to you.
This community is very willing to dialogue and interact with hurting folks, but we also have some history here. Steve has been here when broken hearts and lives have cried out for prayer and he has been a part of ministering to those needy souls. Steve has shared some of his own hurt and burdens and we have been able to pray for him and his.
So when you come here and start ripping apart one of us, without any provocation, I will say that I am offended by that! It is uncalled for and it is unnecessary.
Yup, same old PP
The drones droning on about how great michael is and how tolerant of opposing viewpoints…
… And michael proving their just sycophants by ranting to one who actually has an opposing view point “this is my blog, I’m taking it back… If you’re not going where I’m going then leave”
Tolerance Personified… I give you Michael Newnham, the ultimate example of moses model/John Calvin wanna be. Enjoy the ‘diversity of opinion’ here as long as michael agrees with you.
Man, I go to bed last night (although I forgot to check under it for any Arminians first) and then all that riled commotion breaks out again that can be traced back to me making a joke about Elmo. This, after all the commotion breaks out after I post a link to that awful book. I am turning into a regular lightening rod around here. Next, people are going to start calling me Alex. 🙂
By the way, Steve W., your Elmo video reply was pretty funny. But now that we have Elmo’s theological leanings figured out, what can you tell me about Oscar the Grouch? Or maybe Big Bird? 🙂
I actually liked the video too, but the reaction to Q’s reaction was a bit overreactive… Wow that was tough to type
#104 and #106
Says the guy who trolls the prayer thread looking for any thing he can criticize.
Mike are you actually the one hiding under the bed? And here we thought it was Arminians all along? 🙂
Oscar is a Calvinist for sure.
Big Bird is Southern Baptist.
Snuffy is a Peace-loving Southern Baptist.
From a moderate Arminian … whatever that is… I rejoice
“Oscar is a Calvinist for sure.”
That made me lol!
I wonder what Grover is?
Roger Olsen had some fun with it.
Grover was cool in his day, but kind of irrelevant now since Elmo came along…
I’m thinking United Methodist?
#111 That was funny!
IMO Elmo ruined Sesame Street. Last I looked he took up 15 mins of the last of the program. I grew up on it in the 70’s, that was the heyday to me.
Super Grover was awesome. As was that guy who complained about the fly in his soup.
There is an odd association that goes on between the Calvinists and the Arminians – they both think those are the only 2 positions on the salvation issue – so they fight to the death. But if you look closely, they both come from the same tradition and it is really an intra mural sport. (they both come out of the radical reformation)
Most of the Christian world holds neither of their views, and neither side (C or A) even give a nod to completely different views.
Those other views are 1.) Orthodox / Roman Catholic and 2.) the Lutheran view.
I think MLD is feeling left out because nobody is looking for Lutherans under the bed. 🙂
“Help, Mom! Luther is hiding more theses under my bed!”
“But if you look closely, they both come from the same tradition and it is really an intra mural sport. (they both come out of the radical reformation)”
Yes, but didn’t this come out of Martin Luther? I actually find Martin Luther and Calvin basically on the same page although I know they had their major differences.
It’s just that everyone says “I am a Calvinist” or “I am an Arminian” or “I am a Calminian”
Like you have to choose between the 2 – one or the other or a blend.
And both are very poor views on the topic.
Andrew – 2 points
1.) Luther was before Calvin
2.) Calvinism did not come from John Calvin – but from some of his more radical followers. If I remember correctly, Calvin was already taking the dirt nap when this debate broke out.
So, Luther and Calvin could have been close – but Lutheranism and Calvinism are not.
On this topic, the bound will is the point of Lutheranism – not depravity.
Lutheranism begins with God’s mercy whereas Calvinism runs right to God’s sovereignty.
I won’t say better or worse – but I will say not the same and not close.
Thanks MLD for that explanation.
I don’t consider myself Calvinist or Arminian any more than I consider myself Catholic or Protestant or a gentile or a gringo or any of those labels others may assign to me. They are only labels and only someone’s opinion.
People have some trouble reading Luther’s Bondage of the Will. They will say, be sounds a lot like Calvin on all these issues. The reason? Somehow, JI Packer became the translator of Luther from the German to the English.
Now, not that they are deceptive, but Calvinist think in Calvinism language, so much of it entered the English translation.
If you ever want to Calvinism language creep into translations, look at what the Calvinists did to the NIV. Every place that you read Sovereign LORD, guess which word is not really there?
Why do I argue about Calvinism vs Arminianism? Because I like to argue.
Seriously, I grew up in an argument. I was the scared little kid cowering in my room. In my early teens I got to be good at arguing just to make a point. Even if I didn’t believe my point I just had to argue. Just to have my way. When I was17 I found that I could explain myself and for some reason that would diffuse an argument. I liked it. I discovered that when I knew something to be true I didn’t have to push it. Either it was true or not. It was ok that someone didn’t agree. This was before I became a Christian.
“Why do I argue about Calvinism vs Arminianism? Because I like to argue.”
To me this whole debate is pointless, again many Christians love to label themselves with titles that have nothing to do with the Lord
“I give you Michael Newnham, the ultimate example of moses model/John Calvin wanna be. Enjoy the ‘diversity of opinion’ here as long as michael agrees with you.
Lets say for the sake of argument that you have a great big front yard.
The yard is always full of children playing and neighbors barbecuing.
The only problem with this idyllic scene is that once or twice a day the same person brings a dog to the lawn and leaves a hot steaming pile in the middle of the yard.
Everyone goes home because of the stench.
You clean up the mess and try again.
He comes back with the dog.
Because it is your yard, you forbid him from doing so.
He can make his dog defecate in his own yard.
He leaves your yard angrily screaming “Moses Model”!
Q and Mike have been released to find other yards to unload on.
Calvinism came out of the magisterial Reformation.
Arminianism actually is an offshoot of Calvinism about 100 years after Calvin.
Arminianism or some variant thereof, is the primary American position…which on a blog that is primarily comprised of Americans will be a focal point.
there are other lawns that need greening.
If there is anywhere a Calvinist more approachable and reasonable in defending the tenets of Calvinism then M. Newnham, I have not encountered that individual.
I have always found Smugness and Arrogance to be the final two points of TULIPSA.
Unfortunately, I can see where you would get that impression.
If you study historical works that isn’t so evident, as the older writers truly believed that making much of God made less of them.
We all think we’re right and because we believe we’re right, by implication someone must be wrong.
How we handle our “rightness” becomes the issue.
The other problem is that some accept a very static system and allow no variations from it, then spend their lives defending the box.
I have found that Calvinists who major on the “five points” are the least understanding of Calvin himself and the most likely to tear your hide off.
Calvin never posited a five point theology…
Arminians under my bed is bunk. 😉
@ 130 – Michael – I’m tossing around the idea that America is from a primarily Arminian +/- position. Probably started there, but is it still? Understanding that we don’t read much anymore anyway, but would you agree that the significant portion of most publication has more roots in Reformed theology today?
Is America in a transition then from +/- Arminian ‘roots’ to Reformed? If not via writing, I know I tend to think of the most influential thinkers in American Christendom as being Reformed Theology rooted. My perception could be off.
Not an earth shattering point of discussion, just wondering which way you see the influence leaning things. You know, apart from crass commercialism, ha ha (weep).
“Calvin never posited a five point theology…”
Then is it not Calvin’s doctrine?
From what I have read of Arminius, Arminianism is not really what he taught or believed.
By no means is the pendulum swinging toward Geneva if you are talking about the masses.
All you have to do to understand that is walk into any Christian bookstore or look at the top ten selling books.
America has a rich tradition of a Calvinistic minority…Whitefield, the Great Awakening, and so on…but the psyche of this country is decidedly Arminian.
Nice visual in that metaphor for the aforementioned defecating pet owners 😉
These questions are why I keep harping on having a knowledge of church history.
The “five points” were a response to five points of dissension from the “Remonstrants” at the Synod of Dort a hundred years after Calvins’ death.
These dissidents were followers of Arminius.
Calvin’s theology was far broader and deeper than five points…in reality, Calvin would have had some problems with limited atonement and how the other points are framed.
Okay, so then Calvin would not have taught TULIP and Arminius did not teach what is credited to his name?
Calvin would have found the TULIP simplistic and without nuance.
I don’t know what of Arminian doctrine you’re asking about.
Okay so Tulip is a version of less minded Calvin doctrine that he would not support?
Arminian doctrine I was referring to would be The Opinion of the Remonstrants.
From what I have read this is not what Arminius believed or taught.
Calvins’ basic theology is written in the Institutes…which are two or three volumes long depending on the publisher.
He expands on that in his commentaries and tracts…many more volumes.
You can’t boil that down to bullet points without losing a great deal and warping what is being taught.
To my knowledge the articles of the Remonstrants were a reflection of Arminius’s theology.
“Elmo is obviously a charismatic of the Toronto persuasion…”
What CCCM once was…
“On this topic, the bound will is the point of Lutheranism – not depravity.
Lutheranism begins with God’s mercy whereas Calvinism runs right to God’s sovereignty.”
A wise man once told me that a difference that makes no difference is no difference at all.
I have read Luther’s “Bondage of the Will”. Luther and Calvinism are both theistic determinists. To the Calvinist there is only one will in the Universe and all other persons must do His bidding. Looking for a better translation can’t fix Luther.
As Luther similarly put it: “Thus the human will is placed between the two like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it will and goes where God wills, as the Psalm says: “I am become as a beast and I am always with thee” . If Satan rides it, it wills and goes where Satan wills; nor can it choose to run to either of the two riders or to seek him out, but the riders themselves contend for the possession and control it.”
I doubt that most Calvinists would disagree with Luther on this point. Since neither believe in free will in any sense, I am trying to see a meaningful difference between the two views.
The rest (Catholic, Orthodox and Arminian – as well as all others) don’t buy into the radical determinism of Calutheranism.
George Whitfield was probably my first hero of the faith. I couldn’t carve him on Mt Rushmore though cuz I couldn’t get him to stand still. The psyche of our country is me me me.
CCCM was never as Toronto as Toronto was, even in it’s most Frisbee daze. My compooter is acting up.
Are there any books on the subject of spiritual abuse? The only thing I could find were 2 books written by Francis J. Beckwith in the ’90’s: Churches That Abuse and Recovering From Churches That Abuse. Got a bad review from CRI cuz the author interviewed the victims but not the alleged perps.
Correction: The author of the books is Ronald Enroth. Francis Beckwith wrote the review.
Read anything by Jeff VanVonderen: The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, and When God’s People Let You Down. Also helpful are Tired of Trying to Measure Up, and Families Where Grace is in Place. Jeff “gets” grace and more. We used the last book when we raised our kids.
You can find ’em on Amazon. And check your library system.
Monax has a quote from one of VanVonderen’s books @1 on the spiritual abuse thread.
MTM is correct when he says that the Catholics and the Orthodox never believe that God is in control.
To the Catholic and Orthodox (who except for some thoughts on the Pope are 2 peas in a pod) it is always about man and who can climb the ladder the highest on their own.
“he who dies with the most good works wins” 🙂
I believe in good works. Boy, 2 peas in a pod. I could run with that. lol
I set it up, MLD. You coulda smacked it right outta the park.
MLD is a Dodgers fan, Gary. Therefore, he can’t hit… 🙂
Staying too long at Chevez Ravine?
Do they have ivory towers in LA?
“Help. Mom! There’s a baseball team under my bed.
“Can’t be, son. They’re in the cellar.”
Never has someone who knows so little about the EO had so much to say.
MTM – my comments were more about you than they were the EO.
I realize some in the EO may still think God is in charge – by your own words, you just don’t happen to be one.
MLD – Define “in charge”.
I thought not…
I realize some in the EO may still think God is in charge <<<
Everyone in the EO believes God is in charge.
To the Catholic and Orthodox (who except for some thoughts on the Pope) are 2 peas in a pod) <<<
And how do you know this? What do you really know about Eastern Orthodoxy? After all I've said here the past ten years, is this really the best you can come away with?
I agree w/ MTM. Never has anyone who knows so little about a topic pontificated so much.
What you do not know- cannot know currently- is that Orthodoxy is a life to be lived, not a set of doctrines to be believed. Sure, there are doctrines galore but unless they are set in the context of church life- AKA “Our life in Christ,” a person who only knows Orthodoxy through books and tapes will actually know very little about Orthodoxy. This is why you are able to make so many erroneous statements.
Xenia, I think that the EO generally believes in free will. Lutheran’s don’t. Luther believed that the will was in bondage and was either controlled by God or by the Devil. No free will at all. So when someone says that God is in control from the Lutheran perspective it means something different than it means to an EO person. If sin exists and God is “in charge” of everything that exists, then God is responsible for sin being the one “in charge”. I know that’s not the EO view. That’s why I challenged MLD to define “in charge”. If he defends the idea that God is the cause of man’s sin, they I reject that.
I love this, Michael.
Thank you, Jeff!
Don’t be a stranger..
MTM, the EO do believe in free will but there’s also the tendency to say “It will happen if God wills it.” In other words, we believe two apparently contradictory things at the same time. I think this is the best we are able to do, to say both things are true without making draconian doctrines either way.
You must have missed when I said “MTM – my comments were more about you than they were the EO.”
My knowledge of the EO comes from comments made by MTM … who as an EO attendee punishes God by refusing to participate in communion (for 7 yrs) because, as he says, that Jesus’ free gift of giving us his body and blood is really Jesus putting us back under the bondage of the law.
His comments speak his heart.
MLD, I am aware that you are bantering with MTM and *some* of your comments are directed to him as a person. But not all of them are, and those that seem to demonstrate a general ignorance of Orthodoxy are the ones I chose to address.
Your knowledge of Orthodoxy does not just come from MTM’s statements. That is incorrect. You have been reading at least some of my explanations of Orthodoxy ever since you came here. I know you have some kind of issue with reading/ arguing with women but I know you have read some of my posts because you have often responded to them. So to say “my knowledge of EO comes from comments made by MTM” is disingenuous at best.
“My knowledge of the EO comes from comments made by MTM …”
Surely your head cannot be buried that deeply in the sand. If MTM speaks on a subject, then for all of us, all of our knowledge comes from him. MTM is the self proclaimed source of all knowledge on all topics.
So, if MTM speaks on the topic of EO – well, what can I say, your 10 yrs of discussion goes out the window.
“If sin exists and God is “in charge” of everything that exists, then God is responsible for sin ”
I guess I could ask you to define “responsible.”
But you must be saying that God in your view woke one morning and said “crap! what is this? Sin? where did sin come from? Now what am I going to do? – Jesus, get over here, we have a mess to clean up.”
Oh heck, let me give you a 🙂 it’s Friday.
MLD, *You* are the one who said your knowledge of the Orthodox Church comes from MTM, not me. *i* am the one calling you out on this erroneous remarks. MTM knows a lot about Orthodoxy, far more than you do. I haven’t read every word he’s written but I haven’t seen him misrepresent EO yet. What I have seen, over and over, is your twisting of his words to make Orthodoxy out to be something it isn’t and it is disingenuous and frankly, dishonest for you to continually do this.
I guess this is a hobby for you, to argue on the Internet in this fashion. I suggest you take up golf.
shoud read “this erroneous remark.”
Xenia – let me just give you a 🙂
Don’t be so sensitive – I take his shots about Lutheranism. But then, this is why I don’t have “discussions” here with the ladies.
>>Don’t be so sensitive.<<
Nice insult. I am, as a women, too sensitive to discuss theology with.
No MLD, I am just calling you dishonest in this discussion w/ MTM, as you have called many other posters dishonest in the past
” I know you have some kind of issue with reading/ arguing with women…”
You took the first shot.
But here is another 🙂
MLD are you this big an abuser at your own church? Somewhere you said you were on some sort of financial committee which means to the casual observer you have authority in your church. Do you use the same sort of sarcasm and ridicule to get your own way there?
Xenia leads me towards EO you lead me in a run away from the Missouri Synod.
Sad 🙁 not a 🙂
Bob, we each have our own unique love language.
LOL at PPVet. I used to argue about my religion just like MLD does. I gave it up for Lent. Then I gave up Lent.