James MacDonald (left), Mark Driscoll (right)
On the Debrief Show video blog with Matt Brown, Mark Driscoll told bloggers to blog so of course, I must. About what, you ask? Calvinism and the garbage that it is, according to Driscoll. Watch:
After saying Time magazine dubbed him one of the thought leaders of the “young, restless, and reformed” (YRR) movement, Driscoll added:
I don’t hold to the five points of Calvinism. I think it’s garbage, so blog about that, but anyways, because it’s not biblical.
It is my impression that Driscoll restated Calvinism in several ways over the years (e.g. here) to try to make it more acceptable so I don’t think this is a tremendous departure from the past. I will defer to Driscoll watchers to comment about Driscoll’s devotion to the five points. However, what is notable now is his dismissal of the system as “garbage.”
Even more interesting is Driscoll’s psychological analysis of his former YRR mates as “little boys with father wounds.” Calvin and Luther are father figures as is God. Calvin and Luther are “dead guys” who are distant like their earthly fathers. In a way, he provided an armchair explanation for why conversion could be viewed as a psychological experience rather than a spiritual experience. I wonder if he realizes he did that.
In any case, Driscoll left Mars Hill and told many people that he was ready to be a spiritual father — who we should revere apparently.
The rest of the program before and after the Calvinism disclosure is a rehearsal of the need for fathers and how one’s father image effects one’s God image. I might take it apart at a later time, but for now I have done my blogging duty.
Here in another life Driscoll discusses Calvinism and Arminianism. He named one of his sons after Calvin so at that time he was on team Calvin. In this sermon, he certainly didn’t think the five points were garbage. He agreed with them, albeit with a caveat on limited atonement.
Given that one’s view of God is related to one’s view of one’s earthly father, I can only guess that his view of his earthly father has changed.
Wow I’d forgotten how good he was as a communicator. Scary really.
Mark spent a long time and many sermons and published books using the bible to tell us how wrong the teaching of the charismatic movement , Arminianism and emergent/progressive religions were and now he is joining them. All I can say is repent Mark, Repent and find peace with true Jesus Christ. Stop the gimmicks, stop the flip flopping.
Soon very soon we are going to see the King
Some for everlasting life, most for everlasting torment.
Be offended be very offended
Here are some verses from Holy Scripture that ‘knock out’ the notion of Limited Atonement (I post these to assist debate on this aspect of Calvinist dogma): https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/12/biblical-evidence-limited-atonement.html
As John 21:25 suggests, our understanding of God should not be limited (that word again!) by what is in the Canon of Scripture (on the contents of which Christians cannot completely agree in any case).
MD is just a con artist who shifts to where the (profitable) wind is blowing. At present Calvinism isn’t expedient for him, because he is moving more charismatic circles. I think that explains what he says here.
While I was reading this duly written blog and got to the part where Driscoll said he is ready to be a spiritual father, my next thought was that would be like George Zimmerman (shooter of an unarmed teenager fame) saying he’s ready to be the world’s spiritual neighborhood patrol. They may be vastly different in many ways, yet I get the same chills from both. There is nothing wrong in this world that either one of those guys can ever fix.
I thought of the Red Woman in Game of Thrones giving birth to that black demonic horror that then assassinated Renly Baratheon. That’s the kind of children I see him spiritually siring.
I’m one of maybe 3 people that didn’t watch GoT, for which I am heartily sorry 🙂 But I think I get your drift and we agree!
Meh, there’s enough fiction built on the backs of raping and killing women to make GoT redundant already. I’m fine with not watching it, seen this before, waiting for someone to be original rather than just using a medieval setting as an excuse to continue depicting cruelty.
Make that 4.
5!
No zeitgeist ever visited here apparently xD
Well, MD is advancing an interesting idea, but I think it should be remembered that God is our Heavenly Father, so we should careful not to draw too many parallels between his fatherhood and an earthly understanding of fatherhood.
I recently watched the film “The Shack”, based on the book by William P. Young. I found Octavia Spencer’s portrayal of God the Father (who was also played by Graham Greene) very moving; maybe the point here was that, for the hero of the story, “Mack”, to be able to begin to relate properly to God, he needed to first experience the ‘motherliness’ of God (cf. Genesis 1:27, Hosea 11:3-4, Isaiah 49:15, Matthew 23:37, Luke 13:34, …). And while I have no doubt that ‘father figures’ are very important, God’s desire for relationship with his creation transcends any relational paradigm of which we humans might conceive.
I completely agree. I needed God to fill in for both my parents, and He did it masterfully. It was that Love that kept me from suicide over and over when I was a tween and a teen. I have so many stories.
That’s wonderful!
Just on a general point about doctrinal -isms (Calvin- and the rest, although I personally find it hard to identify anything helpful in Calvinism!): they can sometimes help us to focus on how we might allow God to relate to us, but they can so often prevent us from seeing what God is actually up to in our lives and in the world around us.
100% agreed. Abraham and Moses had no doctrine; they found God out in the wilderness and are heroes of the faith. Also, in general I see all systems of thought as sources, raw material for building your own structure. A person who dwells in structures built by others is an impoverished vagrant at best, and a prisoner or slave at worst.
If I were a god seeking worshippers, I’d want the free thinkers. I could do more with them; they see more possibilities and bring about the change I seek in the world, while those locked in rigid systems of thought are stuck in stasis and can do no good.
“Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” The great patterns are religions, ideologies, and economic systems. We are specifically told to reject them so that our minds can be renewed so that we can be transformed. I have been massively transformed this way, and the feeling is like one of my wrecked and dying soul having been replaced with an atom bomb, or a star.
“Also, in general I see all systems of thought as raw
material for building your own structure.”
Or maybe boxes, outside of which to think …
Abraham and Moses had encounters with God (the closest perhaps being Moses seeing God’s “backside”). We have seen God’s (human) face (cf. John 14:9), so accept certain things as ‘given’ (hence there is a place in the Christian life for dogma, though – because it is limited by our ability to conceive of the God beyond conceiving – we cannot credibly assert its immutability*). How we discern and respond to our own particular calling is a matter of our own relationship with God (and others – which is perhaps all one thing, of course).
I’ve come to believe that the divine plan is to heal this world and make heaven here. The two commandments of Christianity, if followed the way Jesus taught, would create a perfect world. If they were obeyed by everyone, the only thing earth would lack to become heaven would be resurrection and immortality, for God would be everywhere present, His light illuminating everything, with no shadows.
You’ve been a real blessing Richard. Thank you for speaking with me.
Thank YOU for the conversation! Obviously, while I understand that this blog is often about ‘blowing the whistle’ on antics that bring our faith into disrepute, it is so good to have a positive exchange on the wonders of God!
This morning, at Mass, we had this beautiful hymn. You may well know it – it appears to have found favour among Christians of many traditions. I’m going to conclude this conversation (there will surely be others, of course) with it …
http://www.billysloan.co.uk/songs/i_the_lord_of_sea_and_sky.html
Absolutely beautiful. Thank you.
Gods word is profitable for doctrine, yeh, important not psyco philosophical babel like what you are spewing
TSC Moses wrote the first five books of the bible he wrote lots of doctrine and theology, who do you think told him what to write? God did. Also Jesus held up the scrolls of mosses and said that Mosses wrote about him but because they didn’t believe what Moses wrote how could they believe him:) I think where MD went wrong as did allot of leaders in the young restless and reformed movement they did not treat the bible with the reverence and holiness it demands instead of sola scripture they became the the cool way the new way and became publishing machines the focus was them. The bible is all the authority we need and it discerns what God reveals about himself and us very clearly. We can trust it to lead us in truth. MD and those of the charismatic progressive movement put the themselves above God and teach God and his word cannot be trusted. I hope MD repents so he can have peace with God.
Moses didn’t have a Bible and was able to receive all the revelation he needed from God directly. Surely post-Pentecost we should be like him.
Who doesnt
Dude, you need to get a grip and maybe get saved
Perhaps you would like to explain your interjection in the context of this post. I don’t see the relevance at all.
Just a troll, you can ignore.
Troll who is a missionary and servant of Christ Jesus our Lord. If you dont repent of your heresies you all will perish
I can see how someone with an approach like yours would convert a lot of people. Just not to christianity.
Good point, Ken.
Much of the stuff out there on the ‘religious right’ is really a kind of culturally-bound ‘contract religion’ (all too often involving its adherents subsidizing private jets, mansions etc.): believe what you are told to believe, follow the rules, cough up the dosh … and you’ll ‘be blessed’, and ultimately get to heaven.
Certainly nothing like Christianity as I understand it …
I would want to stress, though, that what I have said above should in no way be understood as any kind of moral judgement on adherents of these ‘contract religions’. It would be entirely wrong to speculate on whether such adherents ‘get to heaven’ or ‘are consigned to hell’ – “Who am I to judge?”
Maybe. I think it is probably someone with a very rigid point of view who thinks everyone else should think exactly as he (I suspect our alleged troll is [white and] male) does. I note his dismissal of “The Shack”: Octavia Spencer’s portrayal of God the Father is actually very moving. It would be great if he were to listen to what the character says rather than ‘get the hump’ over gender and skin colour.
Come on, “the Shack” is heresy 101. Get a clue God is a Black woman??? Also, Catholicism is the whore of Babylon in the book of Revelations. You might be smart, and deep, blah blah blah, but if you arent washed, sanctified, and born again in the blood of Jesus you are bound for the lake of fire like the world, then again you probably dont belive in hell, maybe it is a construct or something right?
I see where you are coming from! Have a nice day.
Does God/Jesus need humans?
No – God needs nothing
Yes – Jesus needed a mother
Any reason for your question, by the way?
No – God needs nothing
Yes – Jesus needed a mother
Any reason for your question, by the way?
I replaced the L (limited atonement) with a second U (unlimited atonement) and have been outstandingly happy ever since. I highly recommend it. Universal salvation makes a lot more sense for a God who is Love; I’ve come to believe that belief in an endless, hopeless hell for anyone makes God’s true beauty and plan impossible to see.
Also if my human father figures had any effect on my view of God I’d be a militant, fundamentalist, evangelical atheist. I don’t even talk to the people who raised me. So I vote against the entire notion.
Creating your own religion again? Careful, that gets people like Driscoll in trouble. Rev. 20:12 “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.”
By the way, I did not write that. This was written long ago before our forefathers were even born. Post-modern philosophy is a lie. God does not change just because we do not like what He says or does. Truth is not fluid. If it were things that we all imagine would kill us. The fear of little children would create monsters under their beds that kill them. Good thing we do not live in a post-modern universe…
There is nothing in that text that says anyone is thrown into the lake of fire. Hell and death are thrown in. I happen to believe in an extremely inclusive Book of Life.
I am no more making up my own religion than Paul was, inspired by the same Ruach Ha’Kodesh who inspired him. Many early fathers agreed with me. Paul agreed with me:
The Bible is universalist if you read it right. And I am perfectly orthodox by the terms of the Nicene Creed. The special salvation of the elect first fruits does not exclude the salvation of everyone else. Every false religion has a hell; only Christianity has within it a tradition of the universal perfection of creation.
Do you truly believe angels will be going around bashing out kneecaps to make this word true: “It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’ And if not, and the confession comes willingly, then how can Jesus then damn them without being made a liar, for all who confess and believe are saved?
Why would God command us to Love our enemies if He hates His enemies?
Is God better or worse than a publican? I believe God to be perfect in every way, while you believe He created a realm of everlasting imperfection. His creation cannot be perfected if it is forever imperfect, nor can He be a perfect Creator if His works are eternally flawed. If I create something flawed, who cares, it will be destroyed eventually. Everlasting imperfection is infinite imperfection. That’s not the God I worship. I don’t know that I could worship such a being.
My universalism is the consequence of actually listening to what Messiah Yeshua said and following His words to their logical conclusion. If we are to Love those who hate us, how much more so God? And if our Love can heal each other, then how can His not utterly redeem?
In psychological terms, I don’t believe there’s any finite nature that can overcome that kind of infinite nurture; it’s only a matter of time.
Calvinism: God can save everyone, but He doesn’t want to (God is not omnibenevolent).
Arminianism: God wants to save everyone, but He can’t (God is not omnipotent).
Universalism: God can save everyone, and He wants to, so He does (God is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent).
Which of these three Gods is greatest, most perfect, most powerful, most beautiful? Which has the most perfect creation in the end? Which one most deserves the title “Father”? Which one’s “Good News” gospel is the best news of all? Which one is the greatest Savior? Which one is better for your psychological health if you believe in Him?
You can either let your belief about Hell decide what you believe about God, or you can let what you believe about God decide what you believe about Hell. I think the former option is idolatry though.
Who does Jesus save us from? The evil in ourselves, or an angry God who desires to torture us forever?
At the end of this age, when God sits upon a great white throne and judges all that He made, how can He do otherwise in doing so but judge the culmination of everything He Himself has done? I believe in Genesis the judgment was prophesied, and it was “very good”.
By the way, almost everything here is paraphrased from a scholarly paper published by an Orthodox theologian in the Journal of Radical Orthodoxy, only I use much smaller words. I tried to locate it but could not in a reasonable time at this hour.
“Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.”
I mean… It literally says that there will be people thrown into the lake of fire, so…
No, it doesn’t. There is a condition that has to be met first. Surely Nimrod, Cain, Eve, Judas, Satan — somebody could have been named, but nobody was.
Who was thrown into the lake of fire = All those who’s name was not in the Book of Life. Whose names are not written in the Book of Life? Psalm 63, Revelation 13, and elsewhere addresses this clearly: The unregenerate. The wicked. Those who are not the Fathers. They are thrown into the lake of fire.
So for all we know, every name is in the book of life.
Would you throw your own spouse into the lake of fire? Why or why not? Who loves your spouse more – you, or God?
If God threw your spouse into the lake of fire, but not you, how would He accomplish the wiping away of your tears?
God commands universal love. The people He wants in heaven would weep the entire time they were there for every soul in hell, even the ones they never knew. The only two theories I’ve heard on how He wipes away those tears is that He brainwashes everyone into forgetting them, or else the saints actually enjoy the eternal suffering of the damned.
Such a heaven would be a hell to anyone who has ever touched God’s soul, which is infinite, endless, ineffable Love for all.
Putting your hell doctrine above your God doctrine is idolatry and makes you say and believe terrible, horrible things that cannot be true about God. Ultimately it libels God.
Jesus did not come to save us from a bloodthirsty God who created billions of souls to enjoy the pleasure and glory of torturing them for all time. That is primitive bronze age thinking. He came to save us from ourselves. And as I believe God is the very Good itself, and omnipotent, I believe He will achieve His goal.
The Bible is like a Rorschach test in many ways. It reflects what’s in you much more than what’s on the page. If what’s in you is unconditional Love for everyone, that’s what you see when you read it. If you have judgment and vengeance in your heart then you find plenty of that instead.
“So for all we know, every name is in the book of life.” Where did you get that from? I am just taking Jesus Christ at His Word. Your the one going off on your own philosophy, which is exactly my point. If Calvinism is bad because of all the extra-biblical philosophy that is added to it according to you, then why are you doing the same thing with your own? Is that not hypocrisy? I am not arguing about God’s sovereignty, but what Jesus actually said. So if Jesus is not a judge then why Rev. 20:11-15? If Jesus sends no one to hell, then why did He say that there is a Rich Man in Hades in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man? Luke 16:19-31 If men do not go there why are there seven references to “weeping and gnashing of teeth” in the Bible? Matt. 8:12, 13:42,50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, Luke 13:28. All of these quotes are red letters. Why does Jesus warn about a wide path that leads to destruction in Matt. 7:13? There are many more such references to hell and punishment in the New Testament, like Heb.10:26-31 so my list is not exhaustive by any means. Are you claiming that Jesus mislead the people when He talked about hell, fire, punishment, banishment and the like?
You are absurdly trying to read as if it were a literal description of events what is expressly stated in the book itself to be a prophetic vision, written in allegory and coded language. That the wicked are to be subject to punishment is fairly clear in not only Revelation but elsewhere. What is also clear from elsewhere is that “fire” in the Bible as a figure refers to a refining or purifying fire, and the what is being promised us that evildoers, evildoing and death itself are to be purged from the world, and the just shall be saved. Other images saying the same thing differently are Revelation 22, in which the evildoers are not thrown in fire at all, but will not enter the heavenly city. In other images, however, the gates of the heavenly city are always open (21:25) and all the nations will enter (21:24). The vision is also clear that at the end there will be no more sorrow at all (21:4) which is incompatible with suffering continuing eternally.
Revelation is not a consecutive literal narrative, was nevee intended to be and should not be read as such by anyone who wishes to actually understand the text.
This is a typical liberal reply. These arguments have been going on in the church for a long time now. Let’s just say that hell is real, because Jesus said so very plainly. And that men like Lazarus go there. If these things are not to be taken literally, then logically speaking, nothing else can be either, including Jesus speaking of heaven. With this logic applied to all of the scripture then the birth, ministry, death and resurrection are all symbols that we cannot rely upon. Like it or not, if hell is not real than neither is heaven. What you and this Tsc, whoever he is, are doing is just spouting nonsense. You just do not like the idea of people in hell, so you think you can create a reality where that is true. What you have is a fantasy. If I am wrong, no big deal. But if I am right and you two end up in that pit I once saw, well woe to you I would think…
No.
The idea that Revelation is a literal description of events is an extremely modern one arising from people such as you not understanding the Bible. It was understood as an allegorical vision from its inclusion. You use the word “logically” a lot, but I don’t think you understand what it means. If you think everything in the Bible is in the same genre and is to be understood in the same way, you really aren’t equipped to read it at all.
The idea of universal reconciliation, however, is not some modern idea invented by “liberals” but certainly a prevalent and probably majority view from the very beginning of the Church and for its first 400 – 500 years; the idea that anyone will be permanently damned gained traction and became the majority view only later.
Jesus never refers to “hell”. When he gives the place of reckoning after death a name he calls it “Gehenna”, which in the Jewish tradition (and therefore that of Jesus and his hearers) is a temporary place of purification and punishment in preparation for one’s eternal destination, not a place of final damnation. I and most Christian universalists believe in Gehenna as a necessary part of reconciling sinners to God. The specific idea of Hell as a final destination for eternal torment is post-Biblical and more similar to pagan ideasof Tartarus than anything in the Bible. The demons with pitchforks and elaborate tortures are a medieval invention largely lifted from pagan Greek and Roman classical texts describing Tartarus which were being rediscovered at the time.
Hell is only necessary for heaven, or even compatible with it, if you are capable of seeing your own perfect joy whilst your fellow humans are writhing in agony. You say I “don’t like the idea of people in hell”: darn straight I don’t, and if you do like the idea you are very, very far from God, and indeed, as Jesus says of those who think of their fellow humans like that, in grave danger of Gehenna yourself.
Purgatorial reconciliationism ftw.
I think Iain’s reply deserves serious consideration. The concept of purgatory has been around for a long long time, and probably a substantial majority of Christians across the globe subscribe to it today.
As for the Apocalypse/Revelation: it is surely allegorical, just like the early part of Genesis. Doesn’t make either of them any less ‘true’ in the truest sense of that word.
Just a point of ‘correction’: I am confident, given what we know of him in the Gospel, Lazarus (whom, it is said, Jesus loved) has not gone to Hell, though he might have had a (short) spell in Purgatory once his earthly life was finally over – much shorter than mine will be, I suspect!
Wrong Lazarus, sorry I confused you. Jesus never talked about purgatory. This is a RC fantasy. I was actually referring to the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man. It does not say that they are both in purgatory. It does say one is in paradise and the other in Hades. Jesus did say one was in Hades did He not? Are you saying that Jesus lied? From Luke 16:
“19 There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
It was a parable – and a very good one to warn those of us who have the good fortune to enjoy material comforts that so many people have to go without.
By the way, do I detect a little ‘theological tribalism’ in your response?! (We are all guilty of that, from time to time: I will happily admit that the notion of Limited Atonement – to which I think you do not subscribe, if I understand correctly your other comments on this thread – is pernicious nonsense that makes me want to vomit. The idea that, when our earthly life is over, there will be a ‘purifying adjustment’ we must undergo to be ready for the glory of heaven strikes me as eminently reasonable. There! My own little tribal rant!)
If the scriptures themselves make you “want to vomit,” then what am I to say?
I don’t see anything in Holy Scripture that limits God, although we should of course remember that the limitations of human language mean that if we were to adequately describe God the whole world would not contain all the books that would need to be written (cf. John 21:25).
As for Limited Atonement: surely you’re not telling me you believe that rubbish (or, “garbage”, if you prefer)?! (If you do, I respect your right to believe it, of course, but will not shrink from expressing my disgust at what I think is a truly appalling idea.)
Well, of course, I never said that “the scriptures themselves” made me “want to vomit”, or anything remotely like it – as you well know. (Just thought I would respond directly to your rhetoric).
But I think I might have offended you with (overly?) robust statements in respect of Limited Atonement. If so, I apologize. It was not my intention to offend you. My understanding that you were arguing against Universalism (and not FOR LA) – which is something I can understand (as I said to Tsc Admin, I aspire to be a ‘univeralist’, but am not actually one … which might or might not be ‘my problem’).
Username checks out <3
“Username checks out <3"
Eh?
Your surname is an aptronym.
Ah. Right. It is actually my surname so I tend not to take much notice of what it literally means.
“Username checks out <3"
Eh?
Jesus talked about hell as a place of torment and gnashing of teeth. I know it exists because, believe it or not, I have been there. Many years ago the year my oldest brother died, I had a dream. In the dream I was someone who thought he was a Christian but ended up in a pit of darkness. The most scary part of this dream was when I finally realized I was in a real hell, I woke up to this reality. Normally when you wake up the dream feels much less real than this waking life. When I woke up this life felt much less real than that spiritual reality. In sci-fi terms (what else would Spock say?) it was like my spirit is plugged into a matrix that creates this universe, or at least my perception of it. The trip to hell was like having the plug pulled and me seeing a reality that is eternal, as opposed to this temporary life that I now call a simulation. The dream was a warning to my brother who once answered an altar call but lived the balance of his life out in rebellion.
My testimony is that what you are saying is just as much a bold-face lie as anything Driscoll said that he caught on. I do not doubt that you believe what you are saying, but that does not make it true any more than just because some people like me like Vulcans it does not mean that they real. They are both fun fantasies and nothing more.
Your dream was a dream and nothing more. I’ve done acid a dozen times and was cast into the outer darkness on a ketamine trip. I’m no more interested in your fantasies than you are in mine. However as you have repeated issues maintaining civility I’ve decided to block you.
Thanks for admitting that what you are saying is fantasy. I agree with you on that one.
I am not a universalist, but aspire to become one!
I do believe that God has the right NOT to save souls; my hope is that he chooses not to exercise that right. And it is a real hope based on John 12:23.
Hate to ruin your long and astute post, but the natural mind is enmity towards God. You can go to your logical conclusion all you want,but it wont get you saved. God has the right to put everyone in hell, because He is God. Yeh, God is a He. God has chosen by His unsearchable mercy and wisdom to allow those in Christ to be saved, sanctified and glorified in Him. That being said, God is glorified in His judgments as well, those who perish deserve to perish, and those who are saved dont deserve to be saved, but God has had mercy on us for the sake of His son the Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified for our sins and raised for the justification of those who believe
Unlimited/universal atonement (the Arminian view) is not the same as universal salvation.
It is when you combine the other four points of Calvinism. In the Calvinist framework, you cannot be damned if Jesus’s sacrifice paid for your sins. I’m not Calvinist and believe in purgatorial reconciliation. To me, hell is a sacred place of redemption.
If I’m right about that, the Bible might even record Jesus preaching salvation to the dead, and early Christians may even have been baptized for the dead…
It is when you combine the other four points of Calvinism. In the Calvinist framework, you cannot be damned if Jesus’s sacrifice paid for your sins. I’m not Calvinist and believe in purgatorial reconciliation. To me, hell is a sacred place of redemption.
If I’m right about that, the Bible might even record Jesus preaching salvation to the dead, and early Christians may even have been baptized for the dead…
Yeh, chapter and verse on Hell being sacred in any way shape of form. When you get there you will know it is eternal and sure and hell isnt sacred
Yeh, chapter and verse on Hell being sacred in any way shape of form. When you get there you will know it is eternal and sure and hell isnt sacred
God tells us what He must do, it is in Scripture, and God can not lie. If we do not know what God must do how can we believe in Gods promises? If we do not know what God “must” do we cant have faith in anything God will do. Wow, for the record according to James, that is a book in the Bible, those who consider themselves teachers are under a more severe judgement
But God does have the capacity to make it so in terms of the practical effect – or else he would not be God. We simply must accept that whatever God does is perfect.
The essential problem with all the -isms (Calvin-, Arminian-, Universal-) is that, by insisting on any one of them, we end up effectively ‘telling God what he must do’ – something which is way beyond our remit! Our concern must be to try to do what God is telling us to do.
But your essential point (that atonement and salvation – universal or otherwise – are not, theologically-speaking, congruent) is correct.
Same same. Calvinism leads pretty naturally into Christian universalism if you simply change the number of people the atonement applies to. I’ve even heard some Arminians use this fact to argue against it! It’s a feature as far as I’m concerned. 🙂
I love the way universalism tears down all exclusivity and even the meaning of “own-group” and “other”. We’re all on God’s path – that is why we don’t judge, it’s why we don’t repay evil for evil, it’s why God causes the sun to rise and set for the good and evil alike. Because we are not in a dualistic universe – there is one God, one Good, one great purpose behind everything, and evil is just good in an earlier stage of its ascent back to God.
> I love the way universalism tears down all exclusivity and even the meaning of “own-group” and “other”.
This was when the gospel truly became “good news” for me. It was a slow unfurling over the course of a few months as I began to comprehend all the consequences of it for all of us.
Same! And the Spirit in me rejoiced at it all, and that’s when universalism became more than a speculative matter for me, it became the truth. He has shown me so many amazing things since then and taken away all my fear and worry and doubt about anything and everything I’ve never known anything like it before. I feel entirely new at my core; at 38 I haven’t felt this young since I was 4 years old. It’s changing my body, mind and soul. Everyone around me notices it. A non-Christian acquaintance told me he could see God living within me. Another guy, a cook at a restaurant in my neighborhood, said he thought I was an angel because of the timely help I gave him when he was starving – he never spoke to me before but God had put a love for him in my heart and an urging to act on it. I have so many stories like that since I became universalist.
“Be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” – I didn’t expect this much transformation. It’s total metamorphosis of my entire being. My entire mission in life now is to spread Love and help the oppressed, abandoned, imprisoned, and homeless. I have no other ambitions.
Seeing God clearly is a big deal and universalism lets you do that. “Behold, I make all things new.” I’m crying right now from joy overload just thinking about it all. I’ve never had a brighter hope or a more abundant life.
Then why did Christ, die and rise again? Universalism makes the cross of Christ to none effect.
Oh yeh, and the whole devil thing is Hollywood? Wow
“Young?”
I’d show my favorite examples of the clinging to youth in some of these pastors but it would be too mean.
The featured thing in Time Magazine to which he refers was 10 or 15 years ago, so the adjective was not unreasonable at the time.
Thank you, I missed that.
I’m not aware of a Calvinist (Old or New) that doesn’t hold to some of or form of TULIP?
There aren’t any. You can be reformed and not hold to TULIP, but not Calvinist.
Actually, that’s not accurate. To be Reformed is to hold a Calvinistic view of soteriology (TULIP) and to hold to the Historic Reformed Creeds and confessions, 3FoU, WCF, etc, which all teach TULIP. But, being Calvinistic is not necessarily the same thing as being Reformed. Baptists do not subscribe to the Reformed Creeds (unless you count the LBC1689, which does teach TULIP, yet is a distinctly Baptist creed and not Reformed), yet there are those who do hold to the five points of Calvinism. There are, however, some who would consider Lutherans to be Reformed. I think this is also not accurate, as they, themselves, do not consider themselves to be Reformed, but Lutheran.
With all that said, Mark Driscoll was not Reformed. He was a Calvinistic, Baptistic pastor of his own self-established denomination.
Actually, that’s not accurate. To be Reformed is to hold a Calvinistic view of soteriology (TULIP) and to hold to the Historic Reformed Creeds and confessions, 3FoU, WCF, etc, which all teach TULIP. But, being Calvinistic is not necessarily the same thing as being Reformed. Baptists do not subscribe to the Reformed Creeds (unless you count the LBC1689, which does teach TULIP, yet is a distinctly Baptist creed and not Reformed), yet there are those who do hold to the five points of Calvinism. There are, however, some who would consider Lutherans to be Reformed. I think this is also not accurate, as they, themselves, do not consider themselves to be Reformed, but Lutheran.
With all that said, Mark Driscoll was not Reformed. He was a Calvinistic, Baptistic pastor of his own self-established denomination.
Presbyterians consider themselves reformed and non-Calvinist.
Presbyterians consider themselves reformed and non-Calvinist.
All denominations are self-established.
Sure, I’ll grant that. Also, not the point I was making. Mark was one man that started a denomination instead of being called to preach by a local body or a presbytery. That he started the church becuase he supposedly heard the audible voice of God ought to be a good enough reason to discount what he says about anything. He was his own authority back then, and he still is today.
I see this point. Reformed folks work within reformed institutions. Driscoll deliberately created his own institutions where he could run them (MHC, Acts 29, Resurgence).
I see this point. Reformed folks work within reformed institutions. Driscoll deliberately created his own institutions where he could run them (MHC, Acts 29, Resurgence).
Same story Paul and Moses told. It’s the fruit that verifies or refutes the claim. In fact, Paul and Driscoll have in common that all the churches they founded collapsed in their lifetimes. Moses himself died in disgrace. Interesting.
Moses died in disgrace? Gee, why was he on the Mt of Transfiguration with Jesus?
Sure, I’ll grant that. Also, not the point I was making. Mark was one man that started a denomination instead of being called to preach by a local body or a presbytery. That he started the church becuase he supposedly heard the audible voice of God ought to be a good enough reason to discount what he says about anything. He was his own authority back then, and he still is today.
You can be a Christian but not believe in Jesus! Yeh, ok dude 🙂
Most people who call themselves Christian have no visible proof that they believe in Him, “dude”.