View a PDF of this article here: Super Bowl XLVI was played between the New York Football Giants and the New England Patriots
Super Bowl XLVI was played between the New York Football Giants and the New England Patriots. The Giants won because Tom Brady can’t throw and catch at the same time. (Yes, Gisele, you were not the only one that noticed.) Towards the end of the game, Wes Welker dropping a flying in the air, over the back shoulder catch. It would have been an extraordinary catch, but I think most people believed Welker incapable of dropping passes. Cris Collinsworth pointed out from the NBC broadcast booth, “Welker makes that catch 100 percent of the time,” which he does, because he is such an extraordinary talent. Maybe he should be absolved. Gronkowski didn’t have a good game, obviously, hobbled from his high ankle sprain. But he had a shot at the buzzer, Hail Mary to pick off a tipped football, and win the game. It didn’t happen. But that other guy—may his name be banished from memory—had the ball hit him in the hands in the middle of the field! That catch would have been for a first down and yardage! However much I wanted the Pats to win, my motive to watch the game was to see—if he lost—how Bill Belichick held up under the “test of adversity.” I watched closely at the end of the game to see how long he would remain on the field. My goal was to measure Bill’s humility by his commitment to remain for the whole game until time had ran out and the field was mobbed. To my great pleasure, Bill ignored the security team’s efforts to rush him towards the locker room and braved the onslaught of cameramen and the gauntlet of New York well wishers to hug Tom Coughlin, his longtime friend and former coaching mate. Never mind that no one knew the outcome of the game until the final tick of the clock. I am moralizing! Never mind that leaving a field before a game finishes could have a half dozen reasons that have little or nothing to do with humility. I am trying to impress you, dear reader, with my moral compass, biblical mastery, and spiritual discernment. So you just never mind those details. I watched Bill endure every agonizing second and remain on the field to take his public lumps. With each passing second I became secure in my impartation of Grace to perceive the manifest knowledge of his character to pass the “test of adversity.” Bill Belichick stayed on the field long after the game was over, soaking up the public humiliation, risking life and limb to defy the paparazzi mob. I am here to declare Bill Belichick the most humble man EVER! How am I qualified to make such a claim? Hmmm… Good question. OK, we’ll go with the tried and true: “I’m the greatest sinner I know.” Therefore, I can judge Bill Belichick’s character. Right? That is how Christian ethics work, right? This is the moral standard of Christianity: I proclaim myself a moral reprobate to qualify for the right to evaluate the ethical substance of human action, right? I willfully denounce my moral value as a prerequisite to offering moral judgment, right? Self-depreciation, self-abnegation, self-denigration is the hallmark of truly righteous, truly humble man, right? The highest ethical standard is manifest in the purest expression of altruism, right? Therefore, “I’m the greatest sinner I know” = my right to render moral judgment = my qualification to manufacture ethical standards = Bill Belichick as the most humble man ever. Case closed! … … … No? That logic worked four years ago. Why shouldn’t that logic work now?
172 comments
1 ping
FWIW
February 21, 2012 at 2:16 pm FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
John, I agree 100% with what you said above (theologically, morally, and ethically). My problem is that when I watch football, I leave my Christianity and morals in the other room. I only want my team to win. I hate all the other teams in the league. I hate all the other coaches and I hate all the other players. I want them all to have the flu or injuries on game day. I want them to lose and lose big. I scream profane words when they make good plays, and curse them when they score.
So while I know that what you said about Bill Belichick is true, I still hate his guts as well as his players. I also hate the Celtics, the Bruins, the Red Sox, Boston College, and any other teams from Boston. Anything Boston = sewer scum. I was born and raised a New Yorker. New York RULES!
So my ears are deaf to anything good anyone has to say about Bill BeliCHOKE and New England Pansies.
Jacob
February 21, 2012 at 2:37 pm Jacob(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hmmm great post John. Definitely made some thoughts I’d been having explicit. Definitely challenged some assumptions and is making me think. You definitely made some very clear distinctions though. As always, I need to read through it like 2 more times before I really grasp it in depth. I’ll comment asap when I have more to say. God bless all!
John Immel
February 21, 2012 at 2:55 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
LOL… FWIW… your hilarious … but uh… you know… they have drugs for that sort of thing.
Argo
February 21, 2012 at 7:01 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Great post, again, John. Very eye opening; and thanks for bringing to light the paradoxes, hypocrisies, and logical fallacies of the neo-Reformed “doctrine”. Interesting to note: in order to pass moral judgment, one must be the most morally bankrupt person they know. I thought that point was extremely piquing.
Just got your book today! Yay!
Lin
February 21, 2012 at 10:05 pm Lin(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
John, I am trying to wrap my head around everything you have written. Let me see if I understand it from a believers point of view with some proof texts we are all familiar with:
“Dying to self” does not mean “hating self” which is exactly how it is taught these days.
A totally depraved person (which we are taught we all are even if saved) is not capable of laying down their life for another.
Putting others before self does not mean we must think we are of less value.
Am I on the right track here?
John Immel
February 21, 2012 at 10:48 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes Lin… you are exactly on the right track. Take the filter of historic Christianity away from writings of Cannon. Put them back in context to their audience and social/political understanding. Limit modern understanding to evaluating what they heard in their philosophical context and suddenly snippets of conversation in the middle of the night, to a rich young ruler (an audience of ONE) that says “take up your Cross and follow me,” takes on a whole new meaning substantially different than the doctrine that teaches people to read that verse: “Take up your own self imposed endless suffering as a sacrificial animal in behalf of the church hierarchy for the common good.”
FWIW
February 22, 2012 at 1:05 am FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
John,
Also, to further your point, the Bible tells us that we have been crucified with Christ. Since we have already died with Christ, been buried with Him in baptism, and then raised to a newness of life, what point would there in taking up our cross? Jesus’s crucifixion is over. Our crucifixion with Him is over. Jesus said from the cross “IT IS FINISHED”! No more need for anyone to take up their cross. That is finished, fini, ended.
John Immel
February 22, 2012 at 1:47 am John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW… and that is central to my above point made above. That Yahwah was in the business of changing the man as sacrificial animal for the gods … forever.
Lin
February 22, 2012 at 10:33 pm Lin(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I want to echo something you said on another thread about Gordon Fee’s, How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth, as a great starting point for study. I really do recommend it. “Books of the Bible” is also good for understanding.
Just to recap: Salvation does not mean one becomes a doormat for other believers. That is the part that just kills me. That we are expected to be bullied and used by other believers to show we are truly humble and real Christians.
Jacob
February 23, 2012 at 2:15 am Jacob(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I love how this box thing says speak your mind. It’s a blessing to find people in life you can speak your mind with… Why can’t I speak my mind with more of the believers I know? Well because the nature and scope of their conversation is defined by church authority, un-examined assumptions and presuppositions, and fear of being labeled a heretic, or even just a weak Christian who “doesn’t get it”. And these are not whimpering, defective creatures; these are smart, capable, bright minds and persons that just don’t understand the limiting and crippling effect of having their epistemological paradigm defined for them. Lord please open their eyes to the truth of their inheritance.
@John- You are very quotable haha. I now get one of the main themes of this article- The metaphysical absolute of Altruism, and how insidious it really is. Altruism gives men without substance the moral ability to pitilessly drub about the head men and woman of success, or just people in general. It provides a philosophical, metaphysical framework for absolute dictated moralism, thus relativism, all in the name of a faulty Biblical Literalism. It is the Leaven of the Pharisees, who were whitewashed tombs beautiful on the outside but full of death, who make widows tithe all the rue and mint of their labor without lifting a finger to help. Look like sheep but ravenous wolves on the inside…yeah.
Lin, I will pick up that book ASAP, thanks for the word. Salvation does not mean becoming a doormat for believers at all. I am recovering from this mentality…..Dying to self does not mean hating one’s self. And that is sadly how people see it, consciously or not, in a lot of the church. I’m still seeking to more fully understand the dynamic between being a servant and not being a doormat. Just gotta keep praying and seeing how Christ served people. Any thoughts?
Jesus died to bring us full restoration, integration, and reconciliation into the awesome adventurous life of following and knowing Christ. Living in fellowship with Him is a process of uncovering our identity, realizing our purpose, and clarifying our moral direction. Yet a lot of the church does preach self-deprecation as a form of humility, and when one lives with purpose and identity and moral clarity, questioning things, it is seen as pride or self-seeking.
Jacob
February 23, 2012 at 2:29 am Jacob(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
PS- In above post, I’m not saying that any people are weak, defective creatures. I’m saying it’s sad to see fully capable Christians let others define the limits of their thinking.
Lin
February 23, 2012 at 9:15 am Lin(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jacob, I am still finding my way, too, after spending years in the seeker mega movement behind the scenes. The Reformed movement going on now makes the seekers look like key stone cops when it comes to mind control. And trust me, they were bad enough.
It never ceases to amaze me how much the elite in the religious institutions seriously felt that the rank and file should put up with injustice because it was more Christian to do so. And I am talking about injustice from fellow believers and the eiltes. Do you know how many times people were told “why not be wronged”? Think about it, twisting scritpure to do wrong to people and teach them that taking it would be Christian!
The bigger problem is that by being doormats we enable and institutionalize evil. Think about it from that perspective. The most shocking thing I have witnessed is how many people were willing to go along with evil/deception and rationalize it away making excuses for the “great men of God”. Seems the rank and file did not get such a pass, though. It really is about idolatry.
The worst lie in Christianity is the clergy/laity distinction. It does not exist in the New Covenant. And I think we must start there educating people about their position in the Body of Christ.There is NO laity in the New Covenant. We are ALL priests/ministers with different gifts. There is no laity in the Body of Christ. Only Priests. Including women!
We start there and realize that we have gone along with some sort of spiritual annointing…making kings of these leaders. Just like the Jews, people want a king….when the Godhead is our King.
Bridget
February 23, 2012 at 4:31 pm Bridget(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lin -
Most of what you refer to is found throughout church history. It boggles my mind that so many men today want to look to the men of “church history” for their formulas to “do church.” We especially see this in the “Neo-Reformed” arenas. I pray they start looking farther back (say the 1st century) than the Reformation.
Argo
February 23, 2012 at 8:39 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
John,
Absolutely loving the book. Really. It’s a masterpiece of exposure.
Quick question: If we DO believe in the gifts of the Spirit as still being available to Christians today, is it right to assume that there are actually prophets and apostles today as well. And if so, are you saying in your book that they can, in fact, write scripture and compel people to obey their mandates? I was just a little fuzzy on that point (chapter 16, page 185 in the paperback version, first paragraph…the chapter is Peerless Passion)
I never fully understood why SGM so abruptly (it seemed) reneged on the gift of tongues, healing, etc. But that chapter cleared it right up for me. Wow. But I know that some of the church’s still have a prophesy mic, so why did they keep that “gift”, and toss the others?
Lin
February 23, 2012 at 9:09 pm Lin(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bridgett, I could not agree MORE. Church history is an awful bloody mess. So many appeal to church history. They present Calvin but ignore Servetus. They ignore “God as war shield”, the magistrates (explain how Calvin could, on one hand, insist on LA and on the other compell people to attend church by force of magistrate?), slavery, treatment of women, transubstantiation, Constantine and the traditions of the Greeks are now taught as scriptural for church practice, etc.
John said it best before: We must get rid of our filters and presuppositions when we read scripture. We must read it through 1st Century eyes. A great book to help with this is Kenneth Bailey’s, “Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes”. Bailey grew up and lived in the ME most of his life. He taught seminary in several ME countries. He teaches the parables and main stories of the NT from the perspective of 1st Century ME eyes. It is a huge wake up call. You will never read even the Christmas story the same way again.
John Immel
February 23, 2012 at 9:40 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Argo…
Masterpiece referring to what I write. I like the sound of that. Yee hawww…
As to your question: actually I made no attempt to answer that question. My point in that chapter was to show the Pandora’s box the rabid orthodoxy defenders are trying to keep closed. And why are they trying to keep it closed? Because it challenges their specific claim to authority.
But consider this regarding apostles and prophets: Who the hell needs them to bind mend to their dictates. We have Bishops and Elders and Pastors and “first among equals,” and “apostolic teams” and church governing boards doing that already, writing their own authoritative documents, demanding loyalty to their content in the name of God.
Here is just such an event discussed at the Mars Hill church.
John Immel
February 23, 2012 at 10:55 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Door mats is a polite description of what Altruism actually means. Door mats still have a justifiable service to provide even if it is cleaning shoes and keeping the dirt off the more valuable carpet. The insidious reality of altruism is that it is actually destruction of Man for the sake of destruction of man.
It is preached like it is the personification of brotherly love and compassion but at its root is an abominable force that makes compassion and human love impossible. Altruism denies Man ANY value. And that is why Lin’s sentence is so poignant.
“The bigger problem is that by being doormats we enable and institutionalize evil.”
And this is exactly right… when evil can be brazen and those who advocate Good must temporize it means that Evil wins. When I cannot advocate justice for myself…. I am left to hope that someone else will advocate it in my behalf… but even if they do advocate in my behalf I still have no value to be defended… this is the inevitable conclusion of the Pervasive Depravity/Altruistic ethic. Evil prevails because GOOD can never offer a challenge.
John Immel
February 23, 2012 at 11:11 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jacob… and Lin….
It is better if you all keep wrestling in your own minds over these issues. I must tell you I am as thrilled as I can be. It is very apparent how thorough your thought process is. So… just keep doing what you are doing.
In service to your own abilities I won’t connect all the dots, but merely point you in a direction.
“Any thought on how Jesus served people”
1. Jesus “served” out of ability. That is he was a repository of the Anointing. And that anointing empowered him to do exactly what Peter said in acts… “who went about doing GOOD healing all who were oppressed of the devil.”
2. Christian doctrine has (erroneously) concluded that service = menial. This is not service … but servitude.
3. review the context for Jesus exhortation to be the “servant of all” and notice that he is really short circuiting the definition of GREATNESS. James and John’s mother wanted her son’s to be “great” therefore to sit on his right and left side. In her context she was asking for an appointment of political and governmental power. Jesus is undercutting the drive to define human greatness with political/governmental graft. And now notice that Jesus words are in fact a death blow to our current understanding of Christian = Altruism. The context of his “Be a servant of all…” is directly tied to someone who WANTS to be GREAT. This by definition is a selfish motive.
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 7:57 am Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks for your response, John. I read the link you included. Draconian, is the word that comes to mind for both the Slavery Discipline Contract and the Slavery Church Membership Agreement.
I’m fearful. These churches are one taco away from another Inquisition.
(Okay…taco is Mexican; but taco is the Spanish word for…taco. Okay, really bad Spanish joke.)
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 7:58 am Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Both “Slavery”‘s were supposed to have a strike-through; for some reason, it didn’t post that way.
Lin
February 24, 2012 at 11:03 am Lin(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“It is preached like it is the personification of brotherly love and compassion but at its root is an abominable force that makes compassion and human love impossible.
”
One problem I wrestled with was a definition of love because that word is totally misused in these situations. “If you are loving you would…..forgive instantly….accept injustice….obey your leaders….etc.
And this is the insidious nature of what we are talking about. Some people have been so screwed up, they cannot begin to understand what love “looks” like. They believed definitions made up for them. The ‘word” itself is meaningless.
One of the things I wrestled with leaving the seeker mega movement was this: What does a real bonafide believer, sold out to Christ…..LOOK LIKE. I know that sounds somewhat pedantic but seriously, what would they act like? Be like on a day to day basis. Our ideas about that can really feed the altruistic paradigm.
Our model is Christ. And He was no doormat. Yes, He turned the other cheek but FOR A GOOD REASON…A BIGGER PURPOSE. He did not turn it for the Pharisees! Never forget that. They were not legalists…they were actually “lawless”. Think about that one.
You cannot seperate “love” from respect and justice when it comes to adult human relationships.
To slightly change the topic….think of this…The Calvinistas with their focus soley on the Sovereignty of God pulling your puppet strings actually take away from the understanding in the NT that GOD in the flesh is ALSO NOW our FRIEND!
My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other. John 15
When we love one another, we are not seeking to control. And this fits with John’s example above about “being great”. It is ok to want to please God and ‘be great”. We can do this by serving each other because that is the way God’s economy really works. It is not a one way street for believers in the Body when it comes to human relationsnhips. It is not master/servant when it comes to relationships in the Body. It is serving/serving each other with things like encouragement, counsel, respect, warnings justice, etc. But many think they have been appointed and annointed for this one way street of master to the servants.
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 11:34 am Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I used to think that all the talk from SGM about how you can contribute nothing, so don’t be legalistic, was all of grace…and maybe it is. But now I feel that there could be some kind of underlying message: you can never know or be good, so don’t try.
So they preach that there is NOTHING you can contribute…before, during, after salvation. Nothing you do or do not do ever matters, really, to God, because you’re heart is just a vile pit of vomit. Therefore, you make no contributions. So do quiet times, do caregroup, do church on Sunday, be a good father, but NONE of that contributes anything of any measurable amount to your worth before God. Because you’re natural state is simply categorical evil, there is nothing good in any good thing you do. Conclusion: you cannot know good, you cannot grasp good, you cannot do good, you are not responsible to good because it is something that you cannot even recognize. You have no argument before God, before your pastors, before the wind. “The Cross is your only boast” becomes: you are nothing, will never be anything. God doesn’t see you, he sees the Cross. You’re a barnacle on the bottom of the boat, simply lucky by some cosmic predestination to be along for the ride back to port.
They say the Cross is God’s promise of love for you. But, if God cannot love me except via the cross, then why bother with me at all? (I’m NOT saying we don’t need the cross, I’m saying that love, to me, MUST precede salvation, and if love does, then there must be something worth loving: e.g. man is worth something to God, therefore, he CANNOT be totally depraved…why are we to love our enemies? Because we are to love them…why? Because they are humans, therefore, they have intrinsic worth which is why Christ died for them and me on the Cross). Why bother with a Cross? If I’m not worth anything saved (much less unsaved), that is, if I’m truly just a vile pile of garbage and not worth anything, then why bother with all the trouble of the Cross in the first place? If there is NO good in me; NO good that I can even recognize, worth nothing to God, then by logical extension I CANNOT be saved, even if God wanted to because by saving something that is TOTALLY depraved He would be violating His own sense of justice. Not only should I not be saved, I should never have been created in the first place.
But because we are NOT totally depraved, we have a responsibility to do good, which means that if we don’t (that is, if we refuse Christ, we refuse to embrace the good we are capable of knowing…and, as an aside, this means that doing good after salvation can merit us favor and standing before the Lord…that is, what we do DOES, in fact, contribute to how God thinks of us) it is within the realm of God’s justice to destroy us or condemn us when we stand before Him.
And if I am worth something to God…worth saving, then what would SGM say IT is? I’m sorry, I’m just confused here by the paradox. If there is nothing good in me, and I’m not loved, then why am I saved? God’s mercy? But God’s justice as important, no? So why have mercy on something that demands justice if there is NOTHING worth saving in that something. And if that something is worth saving but IT is not GOOD, then what, exactly is IT???? Would SGM just chalk it up to “Well, it’s a mystery…we shall never know.” Or, in the modern vernacular: “It is what it is”, or “It’s ALL goooood.”
FWIW
February 24, 2012 at 12:34 pm FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Argo,
You bring up some outstanding points for us all to consider. You asked some very thought provoking questions about God’s heart toward us and the cross.
SGM and many others teach a very perverse doctrine called “penal substitution”. This says that God took His wrath toward sin and poured it out on Christ instead of us. So Jesus came to save us from God??? Jesus IS God! Jesus came in the flesh to reveal the Father, and Jesus was a friend of sinners! “For God so LOVED the world” – not for God was so ticked off at the world. God did NOT pour out His wrath on Jesus. He is not a Child abuser. He does not have out of control anger that just HAS to be vented on someone.
And God is not an eternal terrorist. He does not torment people in Hell for eternity. God’s mercy endures FOREVER, not just until we die. God tells us to love our enemies, and then He burns His enemies forever??? He tells us not to repay evil with evil, but to OVERCOME evil with GOOD. Is God a hypocrite? Is Hell overcoming evil with good??? NOT!
Jesus is the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sin of the WORLD. Romans 5:18 says “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” The Last Adam replaces the first Adam for all mankind. He was obedient unto death and reversed the sin of the first Adam for everyone. He defeated sin and death and rose again. That is what the cross is about – not about God’s wrath being satisfied. Isaiah 53 reads much differently in the Septuagint. Not a hint of God’s wrath at the cross.
“I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people. And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest. “For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer.” (Hebrews 8:10-12)
The victory of the cross is 100% and it is FINISHED!
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 3:19 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW,
I need to ruminate a little on your post; I’m not sure I completely understand it yet, but, again, I’ll think on it.
My initial reaction however, to what I think I understand is this: I fear that you are making the same error that those who preach total depravity make. They say that because of your own utter inability to know good, you have no responsibility to it; you cannot know it, therefore, some men are irresistibly saved (meaning, they never chose it; it was thrust upon them), and some men are irresistibly condemned; meaning, that’s their lot in life…they were born to be thrown into hell (limited atonement). I feel like you are doing the same thing…only in reverse, so to speak. You are saying that because Jesus (the one act of righteousness) came to justify all life means that all mankind is saved regardless of any will or thought or intent or understanding of good and God whatsoever. So your argument again presumes that men are mere puppets who cannot help but go to heaven because God said so. The functional outcome is no different: men do NOT own themselves. They are mindless, stupid, blind lumps of flesh…all reality is a divine illusion.
I don’t agree. Men ARE given to grasp good. Choice is NOT an illusion. To accept Christ is their choice. Therefore, God’s justice is satisfied logically, spiritually, etc. etc. when we stand at the throne. God saves those who have acknowledged the good that was given for them to accept, freely, and condemns those who refused this recognizable good, preferring sin and themselves to righteousness through Christ.
Whatever the argument, predestination or salvation for ALL, any doctrine that removes the culpability of man (due to his God given ability to reason) removes, in my opinion, the WORTH and humanity of mankind, and therefore, to me, is not Biblical. We have been made in the image of God; we have intrinsic worth. We have value. That value is due, in part, to our ability to know good; therefore, we are responsible for acting on that knowledge. If we do not, WE are at fault, and justifiably condemned.
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 3:20 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lin,
Your last post was awesome. You are obviously brilliant.
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 3:25 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
One more point…I may be right or I may be wrong. But I would say this: that no matter the doctrine, TULIP, or Salvation for ALL, regardless of who”, the logical conclusion is that our lives, here on Earth, in this flesh, in this timeline, bound by these physical laws, are completely irrelevant.
IF all reality is in fact an illusion, and all we are all just puppets walking out some divinely, predestined play, then all of this life is moot. There is no reason for any of us to have been born.
I do not accept that. I have said this before: God is a God of mystery, yes, but he is not a God of logical inconsistency. He is NOT a God of the pointless.
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW,
One more thing I want to say and then I’ll shut it.
For the neo-Reformed Calvinists: THEY want to declare all men totally depraved so that all men and all cultures are one way or another bound to them, spiritually or physically, or, preferably both. YOU want to declare all men saved, regardless of their rejection of salvation and righteousness because that absolves you from having to actually argue or fight for your ideas…you can just sing Kumbaya and have a good time with anyone doing anything. Well, that’s fun while it lasts, I suppose. And relatively stress free. Sure, it’s much easier on you if you don’t ever have to tell anyone they are doing something wrong. But that only gets you so far. Sooner or later someone will come up to you and seek to Lord over you and you will argue with what? Hey…be nice to me? Can’t we all get along. And they will say, “You are just another puppet in the show, my man. This is God’s will for you, I’m afraid, because all life and choice is an illusion. There is no good or evil…all men go to heaven, you know. By your own definition, there are no eternal consequences to my actions…and since I’m in charge, it doesn’t look like there will be any consequences in the short term either (and even if there were “I consider these momentary and light afflictions nothing in light of eternal life in heaven…”), so I will oppress you all I want, and you and I both know that in the end, God doesn’t care. I’ll be with you in paradise.”
Lin
February 24, 2012 at 3:50 pm Lin(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Your last post was awesome. You are obviously brilliant. ”
You are kind but if I am so brilliant then why was I sucked into the seeker mega world of following and working for the guru’s for so long?
It has taken me the last 7 years to figure all of this out. John brought in another perspective that I had not considered but makes perfect sense because much of what I was trying to connect would not connect. I had already had serious doubts about total depravity and original sin. And reading “around the subject” concerning Augustine then going back to the Word really helped me see the problems with it more clearly. Once we get that, other things fall into place. I go back to Gen 1 and read the “gold standard”. We were to be given dominion over the earth. We were to have total communion with a personal God. Sin entered and the world became corrupt (plants die, animals die, the ground is rocky, etc, etc) and now we “die”. We age, get sick and die.
Where do we see no ability to make good choices even in that scenerio? Think about this….and this was a huge wake up call when I studied the Hebrew on this: Gen 3:16 is NOTHING like it has been translated. And this is just one example.
The word translated as ‘desire’ is teshuqa. It means “turning” and was translated as “turing” until about the 1300′s when a monk named Pagnini changed it to desire. How does that change the meaning? Well, God predicted that Eve would be “turning” to Adam (and not to Him). Eve did and as a result she followed Adam and he ruled over her.
Eve made a choice. God predicted she would make the wrong choice and she did. Notice later it says Eve followed Adam out of the Garden.
Look how that one passage has been used to blame and oppress women for centuries. It is taught that women want to rule men! When, the opposite is true and we see it played out immediately in Gen. Patriarchy takes over and women are treated much like they are treated now in the ME with a few exceptions. Women ALLOWED it. It got so bad that God had to regulate sin through the law. And if this was meant to be why did God send so many prophets later to beg them to change their ways?
When it comes to charlatans, wolves, hirlings, etc. As my mom used to say, You get what you put up with.
If we sign on to total depravity then we are not responsible for our behavior even if we are saved. Even the watchblogs cannot seem to come to grips with this. They decry the horrors of Driscoll and Mahaney but then in the next breath claim we are all sinners and sin constantly. So if that is true and all sin is the same (as they claim God does not rate sin) and we can all be saved and continue to sin, sin, sin, then why have a watchblog? What is the point? Driscoll and Mahaney are only doing what is normal.
This is the problem we get to when we peel back the inconsistencies.
In their world, if they are honest, There is no difference between Pol Pot and Mother Theresa. There is no difference between Mahaney and you.
I think people need to really study 1 John in context the entire book. They like to quote that if we say we do not sin we are a liar…. but stop there because it fits their paradigm. The whole book must be understood.
Sorry for the jumping around just talking outloud, really, about things that do not make sense and how we need to think them through.
FWIW
February 24, 2012 at 7:30 pm FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Argo,
People reject God because of deception. People are rejecting what they do not know, nor understand. They are rejecting a concept – not the reality. Adam was lied to and deceived in the garden. He did not reject God before that point, nor was he afraid of God before that point. God told Adam and Eve they would surely die – not go to Hell. There was a death that took place.
The wages of sin is death – not Hell. Jesus died for our sins – He did not go to hell for our sins. If Hell was the ultimate payment for sin, then Jesus would be in Hell for eternity. He became sin for us. 1 Cor 15:22 says “As in Adam all die” – not as in Adam all go to Hell. The verse then says “so also in Christ, all will be made alive. The same all that died in Adam will be made alive in Christ. He reversed the death penalty for all mankind.
It is not about being a puppet. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost – humanity. He came to set the captives free and to destroy the works of Satan. Was Jesus a failure at what He came to do? Will sin and deception have the final word in most people’s lives?
People who have been set free are not going to accuse God of violating their free will. They will thank him for not allowing them to continue in their ignorance. There will not be anyone in Heaven rejecting Christ or His salvation.
Can we sin after we get to Heaven? If the answer is no, does that mean we are puppets or preprogrammed? And speaking of CHOICE – what choice did aborted babies have? Do the severely retarded have a choice? Infants who die?
If a very young child needs a life saving operation, does the father need to give that child a choice? Or does he make the choice knowing what is best for the child? Would you accuse the father FORCING his child to get the operation? Did he violate the child’s free will? Is he guilty of child abuse?
Here is the operation that God performs – “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezekiel 36:26 Not puppetry – but transformation with a new heart and a renewed mind.
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 8:14 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW,
For whatever particularities you chose to sermonize, the fundamental argument is that man is absolved of all culpability, all reason, either before the fall or after. You argument is based on the fact than man had and has NO choice. He was lied to and deceived in the garden; therefore, had no choice but to sin; he is not ultimately culpable, because that choice was not rational (i.e. based on real information)…and there are consequences of that sin, yes, you might say, but ultimately it isn’t man’s fault…he didn’t make a real decision. The decision to sin in the garden was just an illusion because he was decieved, therefore, when Christ comes, he must, by default, save EVERYONE. If they in Adam did not really CHOSE to sin, then the cannot of course CHOSE to get saved by accepting Christ. This is what your argument implies.
Now, I reject any argument that limits man’s ability to make a rational choice that has real consequences,good or bad. Doing that effectively strips man of his intrinsic worth as a rational individual, capable of governing himself, choosing for himself, creating a better life for himself, seeking liberty and freedom for himself. If man is not able to choose his destiny, right or wrong, heaven or hell, then he IS a puppet. By that I mean, ALL choices must be by your argument’s definition meaningless in this life, and therefore his life, rational mind, etc., etc., is simply an illusion. And if that is in fact an illusion, then life is irrelevant. The reason we have the bible, we have Christ is specifically because our choices do matter.
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 8:26 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW,
I’d also like to add that in your very own words you liken humanity to aborted babies, retarded people, and invalid infants. For your seemingly compassionate argument, that speaks volumes about what you actually think of people (I’m not suggesting you intentionally think badly of people…I’m simply pointing out what your argument implies). With this understanding of humanity, how can you ever think humanity is rational or capable?
FWIW
February 24, 2012 at 8:43 pm FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Argo,
Did the Muslims in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, choose to be born and raised into Islam? Are they responsible for how they were brainwashed from childhood? Did they choose that? But now when they turn adults, they should know they have the wrong Bible, the wrong prophet, and the wrong Jesus? And they should turn to Christianity just because we tell them that they have these things wrong? They should take our word for it and make the right choice?
Is them believing in Islam about rationality? Logic? Making right or wrong choices? Who is responsible for this? The parents? The nation? The government? SATAN?
FWIW
February 24, 2012 at 8:57 pm FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Argo,
Also, why does it say that Jesus came to set the CAPTIVES free? Captive to what? Are humans free or are they captive? Why did Jesus come to destroy the works of Satan? What works? Why did Jesus even need to die at all if it is just about simply making right choices? Why were the Israelites such screw ups? Why the need for a new covenant in the blood of Christ? Why is Jesus called the Last Adam?
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 9:08 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW,
So…you’re answer to your own question is simply “Viola! All are saved! All are Christians by virtue of being born. Problem solved!”?
What I’m saying is that we argue our ideas and our beliefs from a position of reason. We compete in the arena of ideas. We proclaim Christ and Him Crucified to those who don’t know him. These are all biblical ideas, and they can be rationally defended.
We don’t (or I don’t): Say, “You know what….I don’t believe in this hell thing, or damnation thing because it gives me the heebie jeebies, but I still want to be a Christian so, hmm…you know what, do what you want, think what you want, oppress the heathens! Enslave the blacks! Kill the infidels! Save the Whales! After all, you have a thousand excuses. Whatever! You’re all aces as far as God is concerned.”
We don’t: Say, “Well, Christianity CANNOT be true if God actually holds people responsible for their choices, and sends people to hell, because God wouldn’t send people to hell, really…it’s not their fault. That guy strapping bombs on himself and blowing up little children just doesn’t know any better. He didn’t chose that life. He never knew…he’s not culpable for his decisions, therefore, he must of course be saved. Otherwise, Satan wins. If anyone goes to hell, Satan wins..”
We don’t: Entertain whatever other argument people use to ignore the fact that as Christians, we believe that one needs the sacrifice of Christ to be saved, and needs to CHOSE to accept that sacrifice.
We do: Argue for our ideas. We DO offer a logical defense. We do compete with ideas that attack with ours. We DO offer the LOST world something better in Jesus. And we DO, by this, affirm the worth and rationality of mankind.
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 9:13 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW,
We can go in circles here all night. We likely will never agree on this. I will not accept your premise. Your premise is that people are not responsible for choosing Christ’s sacrifice of atonement. That strips humanity of its ability to reason, and that, in the end, strips them of their intrinsic worth as humans. If they are COMPELLED (forced) spiritually into either salvation (your argument), or damnation (limited atonement’s argument), then there is no defense against compelling them in this life. Bottom line of this: people were born to be controlled. That is tyranny.
FWIW
February 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Argo, how can a Muslim CHOSE to accept what he is convinced never even happened? How about the Jews? How can they accept the sacrifice of Jesus when they do not even believe He is the Messiah? What is the percentage of Jews that have accepted Jesus as the Christ? Why is that percentage so small? Why is that number even smaller for Muslims? Is that very small percentage simply due to a CHOICE??? Are there no other factors involved whatsoever? Who are the captives that Jesus came to set free? What are the works of Satan that Jesus came to destroy? Can you please answer those questions before we move on?
FWIW
February 24, 2012 at 9:20 pm FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Argo, setting people free from their sins is controlling them? Taking away their sin is forcing them? Then I say “FORCE ME SOME MORE”!
FWIW
February 24, 2012 at 9:45 pm FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
We Christians get a big gold star on our report card because WE CHOSE the right answer! We got it right and the rest of these morons got it wrong. We weren’t saved by grace, we were saved by OUR right choice! We are so wonderful, aren’t we now. We all get to pat each other on the back and congratulate one another, and sing “How Great WE Are”.
Do we simply need to choose Christ to be saved, or do we need to be baptized in the Holy Spirit also? Do we need to confess our sins? Do we need to repent of our sins? How about water baptism? Do we need to be obedient after we accept Christ to make it to Heaven, or can we sin our brains out? Do we need to take the Lord’s supper? Unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we have no part with Him. Jesus said that.
So what exactly do we need to do to be saved? What are ALL the choices we need to make? What are all the sins we need to repent of? What about those who stop believing? Do they lose their salvation? Muslims believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. Does that count for belief in Jesus? The Mormons believe in Jesus, but also believe He is the spirit brother of Lucifer. Are they disqualified? The JW’s believe that Jesus is a god (small g). The accept Christ but as God lite. Is that good enough? Does God grade on a scale to allow for deception if their hearts are in the right place?
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 9:46 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW,
You are asking very specific questions. I could address those questions, but I am going to focus on the primary argument. The primary argument I defined and addressed in my last post. THAT is my answer to your fundamental premise.
As far as your individual questions, I would need to think about them and respond later. You’ve asked quite a few, so it might take some time…I’m not sure I will at this point, so no promises.
But thanks for the debate, FWIW. I enjoyed bantering with you. I appreciate your questions and your interest and your passion. Again, thank you.
FWIW
February 24, 2012 at 9:53 pm FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Argo, I am enjoying it also. Thanks for putting up with me. Most would have bailed out by now! Now you see why my heresy has got me booted from the blogs. John must not be reading my posts.
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 9:56 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW,
Well…if you are a heretic, you’re my favorite.
You are too funny.
LOL.
Argo
February 24, 2012 at 10:12 pm Argo(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
John,
I have a question. If one can ask God for something in prayer, and God answers that prayer, can that person then be totally depraved?
John Immel
February 25, 2012 at 1:16 am John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well… I’m thinking that if the doctrine (its advocates) was/were at all consistent someone who is pervasively depraved would not even be able to have a Will to generate a prayer. So the answer part seems irrelevant.
The corollary to Depravity is Determinism. By definition there is no GOOD unless God authors it… so whatever man sees must be a manifestation of Divine intent. So God must be determining outcomes. People play fast and loose with that reality because that makes God responsible for the evil too, but that is the logical conclusion of the doctrines.
So the answer to the question is: a pervasively depraved man suffers a Bondage of the Will so he can’t ask for anything.
Hum… bondage of the will … that sounds like a good article. I wonder if anyone else wrote about such a thing?
>snicker<
FWIW
February 25, 2012 at 11:09 am FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Speaking of will issues, what percentage of people lose weight and keep it off? Where does anyone get willpower? James Dobson wrote a book called “The Strong Willed Child.” The strong will he addresses is towards disobedience – not obedience.
Also, where does evil play into the free will issue? Did the Son of Sam (David Berkowitz) will himself to be a demented mass murderer and then will himself to be a Christian. He now counsel’s other inmates!
And John, no matter how much I will myself not to get mad when my football team loses, it does not happen. Like I said earlier, I gave up trying to be a Christian during football games. It just does not work. I guess my will is to just get mad and be grumpy the rest of the day. That is so much fun for the whole family. And yet I know that “It is just a game – no big deal.”
The have had mass riots at soccer games with multiple deaths, one fairly recently. What is the matter with such people? Did Hitler choose to be a demented mad man? Did he choose to be the ruler of Germany? Can I become President of the US just by choosing to be? What other factors play into who we are and where we go and what we choose? Parents, upbringing, friends, environment, chemical imbalances, religion, brainwashing, mind control, SAAAATAN?
FWIW
February 25, 2012 at 11:25 am FWIW(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A 70 lb anorexic woman looks in the mirror and sees a fat person. How is that possible?
Eph 6:12 “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Where does evil and spiritual warfare play into this free will issue?
John Immel
February 25, 2012 at 2:34 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW…
“Parents, upbringing, friends, environment, chemical imbalances, religion, brainwashing, mind control, SAAAATAN?”
Ok Dana Carvey … caught you! You can’t hide behind a blog alias anymore! The Church Lady is in the House!
Bridget
February 25, 2012 at 3:19 pm Bridget(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lin – Thanks for the book suggestion way up the line. That book and Fee’s are my next reads I think. I will get to John’s, but the volume of it is a bit overwhelming (no offense, John).
John – why no link to your book on this site? Another question about your book . . . is it written in the same form as most of your articles here, with the story telling and sarcasm intertwined?
FWIW – You really are quite full of questions. You answered your own question about being angry when your football team loses. What is the answer?
John Immel
February 25, 2012 at 3:50 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well … I think your questions are really the natural result of your specific soteriology. Or maybe I should say your doctrinal anthropology is not specifically connected to the nature of salvation. That is to say what you identify as the “human condition” is not really impacted by your doctrine of salvation. The disconnect [as near as I can tell] is that you define salvation like this: God does not judge anyone and impose an eternal trip to where it is warm and smoky because Man needed saved from being sent to hell.
As I read past the surface of your thoughts you presume that Man’s problem is (as Argo rightfully identified) that man remains in an almost helpless, childlike, impotent state. He does not have a choice because he is deceived, or because he is brainwashed or because his parents were mean to him, or life’s lottery doomed him to cultural influences or the devil made him do it. It is apparent that Satan plays a big part in your view of human affairs. So what you are really advocating is Church Lady anthropology. Who could have done this? How can SGM be so Bad? Was it …. SAAAAtan!
(Don’t get me wrong. I am sympathetic. I have struggled to get past my total lack of resistance to Sour Patch Kids. That is Devil candy … I swear it is devil candy.)
So … it doesn’t surprise me that the issue of Will gives you some concern. Since “salvation” as you have described is being saved from Hell … whatever Jesus did at no point impacts the Church Lady anthropology. Man remains a victim of his own … impotence? It is a little tough to tell, because your sotriological argument tends to be circular…
God is love therefore he would not terrorize his own children therefore all men go the heaven because Jesus “saved” man, because Man has no really “choice” in how he acts therefore God is Love he will not terrorize his own children… and so on.
… but at the end of your thoughts is the inevitable presumption that Man is absolved of volition because choosing GOOD is not within his grasp.
As a brief aside, the intellectual problem that you seem most interested in solving is that you have a hard time ascribing to God even a hint of “unfairness.” You have decided that a “loving” god would never, could never place Man in an ethically demanding world where moral failing is not just possible, but in fact penalized. I would submit that this is a reactionary position to historic doctrines that errors on the side of determinism. This reaction has (In my never to be humble option) led you to some logical dead ends. To insist that Jesus work of “salvation” means man does not go to hell, in fact concedes the existence of hell — with all its metaphysical divine terrorism that implies. So by definition this concedes that God sent Men to Hell once upon a time… and just decided to stop. Which means that God was at some point an eternal terrorist, but decided to stop because Jesus did something that ends the terrorism?? And how unfair is it to all those people who went to hell before Jesus?
Anyway… that was an aside.
As for your blitzkrieg of questions about human Will ending with the Son of Sam… uh.. hummm… Two thoughts:
1. The aberration does not prove the rule. I expect there is a logical fallacy out there that covers this point, but I can’t think of it off the top of my head. The point is the Son of Sam, in all his psychopathic glory, does not define human will, any more than a paraplegics failure to use his legs mitigates the use of walking. Or maybe a better simile would be, a man using his legs to rob a bank verses using his legs to rescue a little old church lady.
2. The will—the volitional force of human motivation—is merely a tool like reason. Its use is not prescribed by its existence. It is not good or evil for its own sake, but is informed by a man’s integrated values.
This is why I have relentlessly pounded on the foundations of Philosophy … because all human action is driven by the integration of his values.
All philosophy flows from the Metaphysical to the Epistemological to the Ethical to the Political. As man integrates his presumption with each stage defines his values. As I have said in other places: morality is Man’s source for action. Morality and Values are merely reflections of the integrated whole.
So the “Strong Willed Child” is really acting out a value statement. He is integrating his world view, and “willing” to take volitional action on those values. The same is true of the Son of Sam, and the same with your Foot ball hatred and my love affair with sour patch kids. (Inside us both, somewhere is a value structure that drives us down that same road over and over.)
This has nothing to do with right values, or effective integration. All I am pointing out this is how Human Will plays into the broader context of human action.
John Immel
February 25, 2012 at 4:18 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bridget…
“why no link to your book on this site?
Well… the reason is… as my sister is so fond of pointing out… ‘cause I’m a dork. I have been doing a slow roll on the book thing because there is so much to do to get good internet marketing done. I did put up http://www.blightinthevineyard.com. It’s ugly. Needs work. And I didn’t want to let people see it. Oh well… the secret is out now.
As for your second question. Oh yea! Hahahah…. Oh yea. Lots of snark. And lots of story telling. Can’t wait for people to read chapter my pot smoker story in chapter 14.
John Immel
February 25, 2012 at 4:22 pm John Immel(Quote) (Reply) (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bridget…
And no offense taken, there is a LOT of information in that book. Besides, the Fee and Stewart book will give a great background for the Higher Critical Methodology I discuss in Blight. That book will only serve to give you a bigger appreciation for how truly vast the Arena of Ideas really is.
1 2 3 4 Next »
Credo #38.1: Doubt is not humility «
April 7, 2012 at (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[...] Edit: One again John Immel does my work for me, expressing my idea in much better fashion. Take the time to slow through this and chew on it. It’s that good, and it’s that [...]