Rose's Reasonings

Friday, February 09, 2007

A Blog I Just Discovered

Liver and Onions

I just found this new, Non-Calvinist Blog. I like it. His posts are not long. Therefore, I was able to read a couple without investing a great deal of time. But ... they really have something to say! I know you Calvinists wouldn't appreciate what the liver and onions blogger has to say, but I can really relate to the thoughts he is sharing. In the English I speak, it is how the Bible reads.

Someone in the comments section of my post below, "Thoughts on Prayer from a Non-Calvinist," said that practically, I am a Calvinist. Really? Who would have thunk it?

Practically?? I need to get in and answer some of those comments. ... especially that one.

Me ... a Calvinist!!! On what planet?

74 Comments:

Rose,

I know I don't have a history of posting on your blog, but I do read it and UoG often. And I appreciate, usually, your tact when confronting doctrine that is troubling to you. I took a minute to check out "Liver and Onions" thinking that it might have the same tone, especially since it had your approval. I was never one to enjoy a dish of liver of onions and the blog proved to leave the same bad taste in my mouth. Not because he's "anti-calvinist", but because his "speech" was not with "grace, as though seasoned with salt" (Col. 4:6).

I know you didn't ask for my opinion, or anyone's opinion, for that matter, but I didn't feel I could let this one slide. And I want this comment to be an encouragement to you to not let your posts venture into that arena with hostility and outright rudeness like "Liver and Onions." But rather, keep posting things like "Thougths on Prayer..." The real world implications bring out the stark contrast in views more than confrontational language. And are much more edifying (and persuasive).

Now I'll go back and silently watch, read, and grow.

In Christ,
Ten Cent

By Anonymous, at 2/09/2007 12:48 PM
If we embrace the grace, faith, works theory of Deformed philosophy, then we must also embrace the writers who preach it: J. I. Packer, J. R. Stott, J. M. Boice, J. MacArthur, and R. C. Sproul, to name a few.

Apparently, embracing these godly men as brothers in Christ would be a great offense to Mr. Liver and Onions.

I would =not= read a Calvinist's blog if I found that kind of "fruit" growing on it, much less this fellow. He seems livid at the expense of being lucid.

By Daniel, at 2/09/2007 2:12 PM
Why do I know we're thinking the same things? :-o

Sis, please forgive the public notice on this and please remove this comment after reading but your ISP has blocked a range of IP's that includes ours and we we're not able to send you Email. Do you have another address we might use like hotmail or gmail?

By Kc, at 2/10/2007 4:59 AM
Ten Cent,
I am surprised by your comment.
I did not realize you read here that much or that you had determined I had "tact". I will take that as a compliment. Thanks!

I read a couple of the articles on liver and onions and I appreciated them. I am not giving a blanket endorsement to all his ways and all he says, as I don't do that much to any of the other bloggers, even those I agree with most of the time. Besides, I didn't read his entire blog.

I have appreciated much about other bloggers but have not taken on their styles or tactcics. While I may agree with someone, it doesn't mean I have to approach others the way they do. I don't have to blog the way they do. I like to pitch questions a lot more than some bloggers, rather than making statements, although I am not afraid to make statements when I an convinced of something.

Don't worry I will not become somebody else. It is not my way of dealing with others to be super-confrontational. I will not be like the Pyromaniac. heehee

By Rose~, at 2/10/2007 12:23 PM
Daniel,
I missed that statement. I must not have read that post? Or maybe it was one I skimmed over. That IS a real cut, isn't it?
"Deformed philosophy"?

I must say, though, Daniel, that I have read things that I thought were equally as cutting on the Pyromaniac blog, but I don't see you boycotting them, as you seem to suggest you would in the last paragraph of your comment.

It seems there is something about us human beings: it is easier for us to overlook a sarcastic or cutting attitude when the person is expressing our own bias. See, I probably would have noticed it more on liver and onions if he were cutting down non-calvinism ... or dispensational thought ...and I may have been offended a little, even.

What do you think about that?

By Rose~, at 2/10/2007 12:31 PM
Does anybody else have a problem emailing me?

What should I do?

By Rose~, at 2/10/2007 12:31 PM
Thanks, KC!

By Rose~, at 2/10/2007 12:31 PM
Hi Rose,

No. You were being "bad." HAHAHA!!! When I first tried to switch over to the new blogger the first time, for some reason everything got lost. If I can ever figure out how to do it, I would like to have one section of links that go only to godly women. I think I know how to set it up, but I have been afraid that I will mess up!

By Gojira, at 2/10/2007 1:08 PM
opppps, I posted under the wrong blog entry.......

By Gojira, at 2/10/2007 1:09 PM
Gojira,
Did you mean I WASN'T being bad?

By Rose~, at 2/10/2007 1:16 PM
Rose,

RU trying to say there are Gadflys and Gadflyswatters?

By Bhedr, at 2/10/2007 1:44 PM
Rose,

I'm glad for the reassurance and I agree with your comment to Daniel about Pyromaniacs. But I know that comments like these on their site would not be received with the same kind of grace that it does here. Just so you know, it's rare that I go to their site for that very reason.

In Christ,
Ten Cent

By Anonymous, at 2/10/2007 3:24 PM
Rose,

"Gojira,
Did you mean I WASN'T being bad?"

Hmmm....it would appear that not only did I post on the wrong thread, I also apparently forgot how to spell "wasn't." My wife would more than gladly say, "You'll have to overlook him; he went to Central Cabarrus." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

oky that was a Concord, NC joke...you'd have to live here to get it.

By Gojira, at 2/10/2007 4:19 PM
I had a wee look at thon site. I used his blog search engine to see if he ever used the term "another gospel" or quotes Galatians 1:8 and it is interesting that he doesn't. (Or at least the search engine didn't produce it)It really is the next step and it is a big one. He has had a go at Sproul etc., but has laid off Spurgeon. Unless he reads this post and cops on, I think he'll wind himself up and go for it and damn any of us who believe the 5 points. If challenged, he'll give us a display in semantics or still go for it and damn half the church of Jesus Christ.

I'm beginning to sound like one of those profilers the police use, which is not my intention, but it'll be interesting to see. My position on those Christians who hold to the basic gospel message, but who are not 5 pointers, is that they dilute the gospel, but they basically do not deny it and often, despite their theology, go further (gloriously) than they should otherwise, if being consistent.

His site is too big now to go over past pages, but I'm waiting for some outrageous statement to appear in the coming days that is just pure hogwash and I'll give him a tug and ask him for proof. I think he is trigger happy and the relative non response to many of his articles will drive him to say something completely out of turn.

I want to avoid a prolonged debate with him and I don't want to break into a series of studies either. I hadn't heard about him until you referenced him. So, I've bookmarked him for myself. I don't think he is going to come up with anything new, but still...I've given myself a few things to look for, which will keep it interesting. Was Spurgeon a damnable heretic? I wonder is he a KJV Only IFB? Hmmmm...that's always a good one when the going gets hot! It is amazing how Spirit filled translators, spiritual giants in an age of faith on one subject, become damnable heretics and fuel for hell in another. However, he hasn't actually said it yet. Is it fair to ask?

By Colin Maxwell, at 2/10/2007 5:06 PM
Rose, I thought the "deformed" remark was clever, if childish, but that wasn't what offended me.

What offended me, and would keep me from reading that blog was not the clever (albeit intentionally insulting)"cut" - it was rather the personal attack against MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, etc. These are godly men and anyone who would not embrace them as brothers because he doesn't like their theology isn't worth my time.

Sarcasm and wit don't offend me, but lovelessness - that offends.

If I find that the Pyromaniacs (as opposed to those making comments there) are saying things that demonstrate a graceless disposition, I will email them and tell them so, and if it becomes clear that they are going to persist in lovelessness - I would stop reading their blog.

But if they are sarcastic, I can't condemn that - the bible is full of sarcasm (Elijah: Yell louder.... maybe Baal is asleep or on the potty?)

I am reminded of the mother who gets an abortion and justifies this act of violence by saying that she was raped. Can one act of violence undo another? Likewise even if there are posts that are offensive on teampyro, that has nothing to do with the lovelessness demonstrated on liver and onions.

Sarcasm can be used to show the absurdity of a position, but hate just stinks.

By Daniel, at 2/10/2007 5:10 PM
goodnightsafeathome - He has comment moderation turned on, which may well explain why no one seems to disagree with him...

By Daniel, at 2/10/2007 5:12 PM
Rose,

Thank you for sharing this blog. I like it mostly. A couple things surprise me a little. One is that he rightly stands against Commitment Salvation, but then inexplicably has a great admiration for Finney! I can't see how that would go together but I may be missing something. (Most likely 2 thirds of my brain!!)

By Anonymous, at 2/10/2007 6:17 PM
Daniel of Doulogos:

You not only read Frank Turk's tripe, your picture is on his blog. This liver and onions guy is tame compared to the centurion.

By Antonio, at 2/11/2007 12:51 AM
Rose, thanks for linking to this blog blog. I really like his Calvinism posts. (I haven't read all of his blog.) I think his use of "Deformed theology" could be left out, but so far that's the worst I've seen and, to me, that is extremely tame.

By Dawn, at 2/11/2007 12:54 AM
Furthermore, Daniel, the Pyro boys have had a few clever remarks about Zane Hodges... but possibly you wouldn't think him godly.

By Antonio, at 2/11/2007 12:55 AM
Antonio, I like Frank, but then, I understand his sense of humor.

I suspect that the team pyro guys regard Hodges as well meaning, but off center.

You should speak to those guys directly if you have something to say about them.

By Daniel, at 2/11/2007 5:29 PM
Hi Rose,

I didn'thave time to check out liver and onions, but I finally had a chance to do a little blogging so I wanted to stop by and say hello. So, are you getting much sleep these days? Or is 'the boss' still keeping you up at night? Hope you're doing well, and it's good to see that your humor is thriving.

Loren

By Cleopas, at 2/11/2007 5:46 PM
Rose,

I really can't appreciate "Liver and Onions", I skimmed and read some of his articles--and the tone and language seems rather "immature". He also has moderation turned on, which makes me wonder about his real intentions.

By Anonymous, at 2/11/2007 8:28 PM
Daniel, may I suggest that there is a difference between Elijah using sarcasm with the prophets of Baal and Christians (such as the pyros) using sarcasm to attack differing philosophies of doctrine?

Our speech to one another is to be "seasoned with grace". I have yet to see sarcasm used in a graceful manner.

If Antonio should choose to confront the pyros about his disagreements with them, I hope he is treated with more Christian love than others I have seen who tried to approach them with a spirit of meekness.

I, for one, don't "get" their sense of humor. I find it to be less than edifying.

By Anonymous, at 2/13/2007 8:36 AM
Antonio,

You said, "You not only read Frank Turk's tripe, your picture is on his blog."

Can you define "tripe" for us all? Is that meant to be an encouragement, to edify, to build up?

I can't speak for Daniel, nor will I try to, but I think I can see what he's getting at. The express purpose for "Liver & Onions" appears to be to confront, refute and rebuff all those who hold to certain set of beliefs. He doesn't appear to encourage, or build up brothers and sisters in Christ. He appears to tear down other positions inorder to elevate his own.

And frankly, there's times when the same charge could be leveled at you, Antonio. But then you also seem to have a heart that's willing to listen and discern at times.

Ephesians 4:29
"Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear."

And that's what this is all about -- ministering grace to those who hear, or in this case, read.

Daniel has a really good post about this on his blog (http://doulogos.blogspot.com/) called "Lables and libel." I hope you don't mind me referencing it here, Daniel.

In Christ,
Ten Cent

By Anonymous, at 2/13/2007 1:09 PM
Gordon, In my last comment, I merely answered the question about whether there is any sarcasm in scripture, and gave the greatest example I could think of to demonstrate that Elijah, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, used sarcasm to make his point more poignant.

Your response was, and correct me if I am wrong, to suggest that maybe sarcasm was just an OT thing, or perhaps that one only had freedom to be sarcastic when one was dealing with false OT gods (small "g") etc..

I think your main premise was that our speech is to be "seasoned with grace" - and I agree with that, but I am at odds with the underlaying and unqualified presumption that any use of sarcasm is necessarily without grace.

The only conclusion I can draw therefore, if -all- sarcasm is graceless, is that Elijah was speaking without grace to the followers of Baal.

Just so I am careful on this point, and I don't mind being corrected - I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think as a lover of Truth I owe it to my Lord and Christ to take your suggestion out for a walk and see if it harmonizes with scripture or not).

If I follow your reasoning, Christ had no grace in Him when He sarcastically said to the Pharisees, "You blind guides, which strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"

That is, Christ's use of sarcasm here was not intended to draw poignant attention to the ridiculous nature of their error, and in doing so graciously and lovingly chide them towards the truth - but was rather just a mean spirited and graceless remark intended to insult and offend them for the sheer wickedness of it. (I am of course employing sarcasm here to illustrate how ridiculous this premise seems to me...).

Likewise, the apostle Paul's sarcastic remarks about the doctrinally confused Judaizers ("I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" - Galatians 5:12 [ESV]) - was in fact a hate filled vendettta, spoken without grace from a heart that could care less about those who were the objects of his sarcasm (again, I hope you will permit my sarcasm). Recall that the recipients of Paul's sarcasm were the very people that He was willing to personally be cursed in order to bring to Christ...

Was Paul's graceless sarcasm limited to Judaizers? Was it in hate and bitterness that Paul sarcastically chastised those faithful Christians at Corinth by saying, "...for you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves!" [ESV])? Surely we are not going to accuse Paul of speaking without grace because he said what he said sarcastically?

My presumption Gordon, and again, I don't mind being corrected on this point, is that you are mistaking sarcasm with remarks that are intentionally caustic and meant to be insults.

There is no way to inject grace into an intentionally caustic insult, I think we can agree upon that. But had you asked the Pharisees if Jesus was being sarcastic or intentionally insulting, they would have said "intentionally insulting" because in their pride they presumed themselves to be right, and because of that presumption the rebuke was taken as an insult.

No one who is humble in heart is going to be insulted by sarcasm - because only the proud will see an insult when it is only correction that is being offered. If it happens that the correction is in fact misplaced (and surely this happens often enough), the humble one cannot feel offense because he understands that all genuine correction is not offered in spite, but in grace and love.

A word about meekness.

I recall one day that my wife refused to repent of some sin or other. The result was that I was going to have to suffer some loss or other. I recall that I was bitter about that, and I realized that my bitterness was not coming from Christ in me, but rather was my old self trying to assert itself in my actions. I prayed and confessed this wickedness to God, and called her into the room and confessed how bitter I was becoming in my heart towards her and I asked her to forgive me. She did. But within three minutes we were arguing about it, and my wife threw this truth into my face - that although my mouth forgave her, my heart in no way forgave her - it cut me to the quick because it was absolutely true. The very fact that I was willing to argue it demonstrated it.

I suddenly saw my pious prayer, and my pious forgiveness for what they were - false humility - a show I put on because I knew what a good Christian should do.

There is a kind of meekness that is a mask for a great pride, and I suspect that many who go in "meekness" to point out motes in the eyes of their brothers don't understand that until they deal with the log in their own eye, they are not fit to talk about the mote in another's.

When a person goes in meekness to another brother, it is a quiet affair. When a person goes in false humility, every hears about how their "meek" effort failed to generate the results they anticipated.

That is to say that we have to be discerning even about those who go to others in "meekness."

And finally, I confess, I love John Piper - the man loves the Lord, but I find his books soooo annoying! I wish he would communicate in a way that didn't grate against me so. I have some of his books, and frankly, reading them is trying - it is like nails on chalk board the way he continually finds the most obtuse way to make a point. But you know what? I don't have to read Piper. If I don't "get" him, I don't have to read him. But just because I personally find the way he expresses himself in print to be annoying - doesn't mean I conclude that what he has to say is less than edifying.

If I can't get past the way Piper communicates, than I shouldn't be reading him. But I go one step too far if I suggest that what he is writing is not edifying simply because I don't like the way it is communicated.

Perhaps I am just blinded by my own bias here? I am certainly not above bias, nor am I immune to blindness, but I do find edifying content on Pyromaniacs, and since I am not offended to read it, there seems to be no problem.

By Daniel, at 2/13/2007 1:29 PM
Ten Cent - I don't mind you pointing to it - though I wish more than ever that I hadn't made that typo (lables instead of labels)...

By Daniel, at 2/13/2007 1:31 PM
Wow Rose, you sure know how to stir up controversy.

By Jim, at 2/13/2007 2:59 PM
Daniel, I appreciate your response.

The only thing with which I would disagree upon with you is that each example of biblical sarcasm that you cited is in a different context than is most of the sarcasm that is found in the blogs in question.

For one thing, Jesus, Elijah and Paul were speaking under direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wouldn't you agree? Therefore, they were speaking from a position of absolute correctness against something that was totally opposed to what they were teaching.

Most, if not all, of the sarcasm that I have seen employed in our small slice of the blogosphere is aimed at those who hold a theological position that, in the big picture, is little more than a Christian intramural difference in point-of-view.

Moreover, the sarcasm does not seem to be used in an effort to persuade the antagonist to change their viewpoint, but it comes across as an effort to belittle the opponent while lifting up the speaker. I find this lacking in grace.

I do not see where your points about false meekness, while very true, are relevant to this topic.

I will say that there have been times when the pyros have written things that I found edifying. There have been times when they have challenged my ideology on certain matters and caused me to re-examine my beliefs. This is beneficial, yet the profit is somewhat lessened by the caustic sarcasm that belittles someone for daring to question or debate them.

I will say that I have not seen this in the times I have visited your blog or in your comments. For that I commend you. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this in this manner with me. I do not mean this to be a diatribe against the pyros or anyone else.

By Anonymous, at 2/13/2007 5:53 PM
Gordon, thanks for taking the time to respond. In reading your reply, I am reminded of Luke's introduction to his gospel. He doesn't begin by saying something loftly like, "The Holy Spirit spoke to me, and I wrote down what He said..." rather we get a wonderful picture of the sovereignty of God in that Luke simply said it seemed like a good idea to him to write an orderly account of the gospel.

This is only meant to draw our attention to how scripture presents itself. However "direct inspiration" worked, it clearly didn't hijack Luke's personality, or put him into a holy "now I can speak with the divine right to be sarcastic" type of trance. We have no reason to believe that Luke was even aware that his "orderly account" would one day be canonized.

I think therefore that we do ourselves something of an injustice to dismiss as some "pious prerogative" reserved only for the writers of the canon, the Holy Spirit, and Christ and thereafter demand that all godly men will shun its use.

There is certainly a line that shouldn't be crossed, I think that is plain enough - I just wouldn't agree that it must be drawn at "sarcasm".

Not everyone has that cherished poetic gift of wringing a text until the words can only describe what they genuinely wish to express. Most of us type exactly as we would speak - and that really can leave a lot unsaid if a person in real life happens to animated such that half of what they say is non-verbal (smiling, winking, tone, and mannerisms).

Which is all only my way of saying I prefer to give grace when it comes to matters where there is room for misunderstanding.

This liver and onions cite however, as others have noted, and as I concur, spends itself attacking not only the doctrines it despises, but more importantly, the leading Christians who articulate those doctrines best. Furthermore, comment moderation is turned on over at liver and onions, which utterly chokes out the possibility of dialog should someone disagree with the author. Pyromaniacs has rules about posting - but if you don't agree with what is said, you can say so right there and everyone can see it.

It just seems to me to be a red herring to compare pyromaniacs to liver and onions. The one blog is a widely read blog written by men of no small reputation who have placed themselves open to public scrutiny such that if one thinks they are doing wrong, that can be surrendered immediately to their elders for scrutiny and church discipline - that is, these men have put themselves out there to be accountable not only to their readership, but also their congregations and spiritual leaders. The other blog is written by some guy who hates Calvinism, and answers to no one, least of all his critics, since he moderates their ability to correct anything he says.

I hope that the comparison between these two blogs demonstrates the inequality of such a comparison. I only stand up and say so because no one else has.

Once again, I do appreciate your candor and gentleness. Thanks Gordon.

By Daniel, at 2/13/2007 7:40 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Daniel.

I did not mean to imply that sarcasm should only be used under divine inspiration. I was pressed for time when I wrote that and certainly could have written it better. I understand how you could take what I said to mean that.

I, too, am concerned at the tone of the Liver and Onions blog. While I probably align more closely to its theology than I do Pyro I will concede that some of the remarks were over the line.

I think we would agree that in our speech we should be governed by the law of grace (is that an oxymoron?). That is, whatever we say, as well as the manner in which we say it should minister grace to the hearer and not cause superfluous hurt.

If we are confronted by a brother or sister who is offended by our manner of speech, we should be quick to make amends and not be defensive.

God bless.

By Anonymous, at 2/13/2007 10:31 PM
Rose, goodnightsafehome here. I'm having difficulty looging on to your comment box.

I've had another look at this boy's site. I think there is a big problem here. If Calvinists are all what he says they are, then how can any Calvinist be saved? There is only so far a man can deviate from the gospel before he puts himself outside its pale. If Calvinists believe all that he says they do and deny all the things they deny, then we Calvinists are deluding ourselves that we are in Christ, other non Calvinist Christians are deceiving us when they treat us as brothers and sisters in the Lord and they themselves are becoming partakers of our evil deeds by fellowshipping with us.

It is all fine and well sitting at a computer screen and typing these things day in and day out as this man seems to be doing, but the things we say have implications, and his are petty clear. He seems a bit possessed at the moment with Calvinists. Most of the other critics usually have their say and move on to other issues (at least for a while) but this boy is on a year long blitzkrieg.

Yesterday's offerings include:
* "No one can exploit and pervert grace like Calamites. No one." * Again, if this is true, then how can non Calvinist's treat professing Calvinist as fellow Christians?

By Anonymous, at 2/14/2007 6:28 AM
Hi Rose~
Hi everyone else,
Where is Rose anyway?

Here's a great post, which I would encourage you, and your readers to read.

seasoned-speech-without-pretense

It really is good material.

In His fellowship,
Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 2/14/2007 7:20 AM
Gordon said, If we are confronted by a brother or sister who is offended by our manner of speech, we should be quick to make amends and not be defensive.

Amen, and even "exactly" would fit right.

Thanks Gordon.

By Daniel, at 2/14/2007 10:33 AM
I agree:

Gordon said, If we are confronted by a brother or sister who is offended by our manner of speech, we should be quick to make amends and not be defensive.

Amen, and even "exactly" would fit right.

By Rose~, at 2/14/2007 10:35 AM
Hi Rose,

I think liver and onions does a fine job pointing out the failings of John Calvin's life and doctrine. He does it in a very clever way. But it's true that clever words really don't have the spiritual substance to be very useful to the gospel. And it's true that liver and onions is very fitting in the blog environment and with the mentality that prevails amongst us Christians today. And it would be nice if that mentality slowly changed.

In the view of many God honoring brethren of his day who would not join Calvin in his contorted view of the gospel and were proud instead to be put to death by him, I think they would consider that liver and onions is being a little soft on Calvin. And I also think it's true that much honest criticism of Calvin is inevitably very difficult to differentiate from hateful sarcasm.

People taking those of Calvin's incomplete views and doctrine writing and embracing them as conforming to scriptural truth is wrong to many children of the Word. That combined with his abominable acts of torture and Romanesque views of theocracy just make the man a terrible blot on the face of Chrisianity to many. There were many other God honoring men of his day who were better spiritually able to move the body of Christ in a more scripturally unified way forward. These facts to me far outweigh any academic prowess the guy may have had.

Insofar as we Christians rely on men like Calvin and Luther and others to do the heavy thinking for us then we will be at irreconcilable odds with each other on important points. The apostles would not have approved of that nor would Christ have. So why should you? Why should liver and onions?

Take care Rose and John,
Todd

By Todd Saunders, at 2/14/2007 10:42 AM
Hi Brian,
I read your post about seasoned speech that John linked to. That was so good! You are right.

Everyone,
I did not know this would turn into such a big deal. You may not believe that. Especially you, Jim. What was that you said:

Wow Rose, you sure know how to stir up controversy.

I really wasn't aiming at that this time. I just don't have a lot of time to write much. I clicked over to liver and onions, read a couple of posts, thought it was interesting that there was a non-calvinist hitting on some points in a succint fashion, and thought I would post and point it out. (easy post) I really just figured that my fellow non-Calvinists would pop over to my blog, see the link and maybe say "yea, that is a counterpoint to many of the Calvinist blogs that are so prolific." I did not expect to get a lot of comments from Calvinists. I did not expect to "stir up controversy." If I was aiming at that, I would write a post like one that the liver onions does! (Whcih, I must confess, is not beneath me.)
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that you Cals decided to comment. I think you all know that I like you and love you in Christ. I have no ill-will that I am immediately aware of.

I do appreciate all your visits.

By Rose~, at 2/14/2007 10:45 AM
Just as a side,
I had to look this word up:

tripe

1 : stomach tissue especially of a ruminant (as an ox) used as food
2 : something poor, worthless, or offensive

By Rose~, at 2/14/2007 10:50 AM
David Wyatt,
I didn't see the admiration of Finney, either. I did not thoroughly read the blog. Shame on me for linking it?

Dawn,
Thanks for your visit.

Antonio,
You and Daniel need to make up. You never have gotten over the fact that he called you Antonio de Rosa, have you? teee-hee Love you, brother.

By Rose~, at 2/14/2007 11:03 AM
Cleopas,
I am getting an OK amount of sleep; thanks for asking. He only gets up once in the night now. Baby Levi is a good boy, but I fear he is getting kind of spoiled. He wants to be held all the time during the day!
I hope you and your wife are fine too.

Bobby,
I hear you about comment moderation. I have a certain blogging friend who I read a lot when I first started blogging. he turned on CM about 2 months after I started. I think he emailed me at one point and asked why people weren't visiting his blog so much anymore. I told him I thought that people were less likely to comment on his blog because of cm and the delayed appearance of comments. He was not willing to turn it back off because he said that he was very fearful of all the terrible things that people could post on a webpage that he felt responsible for before the Lord. I believe him, too, knowing this brother the little that I do.

I don't know the intention of L&O, but, he says something similar about his reasons for using cm.

Bobby,
you are very mature in your tone and I appreciate that about you.

By Rose~, at 2/14/2007 11:11 AM
Gordon and Daniel,
Your exchange was very helpful. You communicated very well and with much respect. Regardless of what anyone thinks about me for spotting L&O, I really do appreciate the utmost respect in blog exchanges. That is my preference.

... add a touch of witty humor and I couldn't ask for more when it comes to "tone."

By Rose~, at 2/14/2007 11:14 AM
goodnightsafehome,
Did you recently switch to new blogger? That can make "looging on" difficult. (haha) I may just do a post on all the things I find difficult about the new blogger. You are right, he does seem to be fixated on posting about Calvinists. The thing is, Colin, I can understand that. Sometimes these things that one finds disturbing in church teaching can really take over your thoughts.

Hey,
What does anyone make of the word "Calamite," anyway? I had never heard that word before L&O.

J. Wendell,
Thanks for the excellent link.

Todd,
Hi! Thanks for your comment, too, bro. I think it is a concern that is shared by some here, but not all. I wonder, like you, what those alive at the time of John C would think of the tone of L&O. That is an interesting thought. I hope you are doing well!

By Rose~, at 2/14/2007 11:22 AM
Rose,

First of all I believe you when you said you only read a few of the posts.

However, many of our esteemed bloggers tend to read between the lines and saw an attack on their renowned doctrines. I simply dismissed L&O's antics while appreciating a few of his points.

Obviously, this shows that the Calvinist bloggers respect your opinion and thought that by linking to this fellow, you had endorsed every word he had written.

Todd,

Do you have some actual historical evidence to backup the torture you claim Calvin is guilty of?

By Jim, at 2/14/2007 12:18 PM
Jim,
Who said anything about torture?

The history of the Swiss Brethren is the best source of detailed accounts of the times. It's valid historic evidence. And, it speaks of what most would consider torture as well.

By Todd Saunders, at 2/14/2007 12:47 PM
"looging on" was a typo :-) But the rest wasn't :-) Yes, I did change to the new blogger. Resisted it for a while and then was faced with no option. Was irresistibly drawn to change. Hmmm...sound's familiar. (I jest again. If I insert any more smiley faces, I'll be able to do them with my eyes closed.)

Well, anyone, are we Calvinists in grace or are we automatically beyond the pale until we recant of our Calvinistic theology? Is Spurgeon in hell with Robert Murray McCheyne and John Bunyan and most, if not all,of the KJV translators? It would be nice to know.

By Colin Maxwell, at 2/14/2007 1:18 PM
... add a touch of witty humor and I couldn't ask for more when it comes to "tone."

Christians are allowed to have a sense of humor? ;-)

By Anonymous, at 2/14/2007 1:53 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Todd Saunders, at 2/14/2007 2:16 PM
GNSAH,

1 Cor. 1:13, "Has Christ been divided?"

I think some real good advice here would be Pauls. Did your buddy Sturgeon call himself a Calvinist? I don't thnk so. Wean yourself away from any label that is not Christ. Model yourself after the Corinthians and Paul. That would be a good start.

By Todd Saunders, at 2/14/2007 2:31 PM
Todd, perhaps this quote can answer your question?

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again." — C. H. Spurgeon

By Daniel, at 2/14/2007 3:20 PM
Sturgeon? Spurgeon said much about his Calvinism:

http://www.corkfpc.com/chscalvinism.html

Can such a man be saved if "Liver and Onions" is right?

By Colin Maxwell, at 2/14/2007 4:40 PM
Your right. I've read a fair bit of Spurgeon's sermons where he seemed to betray any Calvinistic followings but did not realize he went as far as to claim to preach Calvin's unique doctrines.

As far as whether such a man can be saved...I think such a man can embrace secondary hypothetical doctrine, such as Calvin's, which even Augustine, I believe, had better sense than to formalize, and still be saved...but should know better.

And I'm not talking about election or the sovereign will of God , which we all believe in. But rather Calvin's unique take on those doctrine, which gives those areas of truth additional definition that the bible does not, thus changing other areas of plain biblical truth in the process.

Even great men are capable of carrying around certain contradictions that they want to reconcile very badly.

Anyway, the result is inevitably a quarrel. Seems to me. Without relyng on denial or repression? Doesn't make sense to me.

By Todd Saunders, at 2/14/2007 5:14 PM
There is one other thing I want to make clear for the record.

When I refer like I have to certain so-called abonimable acts committed by John Calvin, I'm talking about when the Geneva powers-that-be whom Calvin was one of at the time, well after he had established dominance, were involved in their business of holy war adventuring to gain political edge over the Lutherans and the papists, and it was decided that the Ana-baptists and other Brethren who would not join their army would be executed. It's believed that the decision was based more on pragmatics(there were many of them and they were perceived to be in the way in a sense) than on doctrine, but it was so fashionable to use doctrine as an excuse that it came in very handy to that end. There are other examples that I have heard of, but this is the example I read of myself in some CT Library link article which was in regards to the French Reformation.

So now you know. And his inconclusive quarrelsome doctrine only adds to the debateable legacy.

By Todd Saunders, at 2/14/2007 7:39 PM
Rose,

I don't say that you shouldn't have linked to him. I have certainly made a judgment call on things I thought were good, & then after later thought, altered my judgment. We all do that. The Finney material was far into the archives anyway. I had enthusiastically added L&O to my faves until I saw that. That & some of his vitriol forced me to reluctantly take him out of faves. But there is likley sufficient truth in the site to link to it. Hey thanks for your blog! It is a good resource & you do a great job! God Bless.

By Anonymous, at 2/15/2007 6:18 AM
The Doctrines of Grace are hardly unique to Calvin. They have been embraced by many others, including the best and most beloved of Bible commentators which sit on the bookshelves of all Christians of what ever school e.g. Matthew Henry. The title of "Calvinist" is largely inherited. Personally, I have no hang up about labels. It helps clarify certain positions and is needful in an age of much confusion.

I see Liver and Onions in his most recent serving admits that some Calvinists "may" be saved inspite of our doctrine. He seems to have his own version of election which is even tighter than God. I suppose we ought to be thankful for whatever crumbs drop from his table.

By Colin Maxwell, at 2/15/2007 8:00 AM
G,

The Doctrines of Grace are hardly unique to Calvin.

We're talking about Calvin's unique Doctrines of Grace. The one he is ultimately responsible for authoring. And I agree, it sounds great but his own articles of interpretation don't match his actual methods, and so in the end, many of his interpretations are more divisive and counterproductive than not.

If it takes the use of a label for you to clarify your understanding of the bible then you are on no firmer ground than those you disagree with. Wake up to the unbiblical nature of labels like we're told to in 1 Cor. Raise your personal standards to a biblical level in that respect. Don't point to others or the status quo for to affirm your error.

In my opinion, a person has to take the good lessons offered up by the clashing of the church fathers and not pepetuate the divisive ones. Hindsight can be a useful thing.

...or else participate in, as perhaps liver and onions and probably your whole blogroll do, something that's a waste of time.

Something to consider.

By Todd Saunders, at 2/15/2007 10:12 AM
The question was posed:

"Can Calvinists be saved"?

For the Mormons they must follow the Gospel Principles.

For the Catholics, they must follow the sacraments (among other things).

For the Calvinists, they must persevere unto the end in faithfulness and good works, and must die in such a state, or they go to hell.

So to answer your question, Calvinists can be saved, providing they work hard enough for final salvation.

Antonio

By Antonio, at 2/15/2007 7:30 PM
I slugged out the doctrinal end of the perseverence of the saints in a very amiable manner with another critic on another blog a few months ago. Sorry to introduce on your blog, Rose, another page from our church website: www. corkfpc.com/mcgoverncalvinism.html> It is a bit long, but worth reading if you want to rise above the early arguments.

Am I reading Antonio right then, that he regards Calvinists as being on the same par with Romanists and Mormons i.e. damnable heretics? Ought they then to be evangelised, rather than fellowshipped with, and those conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists etc., who do fellowship with them, branded as traitors to the evangelical cause, as we all do the ecumenists?

We all know that no one can "work enough" for salvation and if any one goes down that route, then they are lost. Are Whitefield, Spurgeon, Bunyan and other deceased Calvinists, whose praise is still in all the churches, damned in hell, since they lived and died in their 5 point Calvinism? A little serious application here would not go amiss.

Since I held to the non Calvinist view of salvation in the early years of my Christian life, but jettisoned it to become a 5 point Calvinist (viewing the former as a dilution of the gospel, but not a perversion or a denial) does this make me an apostate?

Don't worry about straight talking. (Not to be confused with rudeness, BTW) I would rather have that, that any tip toeing around this matter with insinuations.View it as a 5 point Calvinist insisting on man's responsibility.

By Colin Maxwell, at 2/16/2007 2:13 AM
Rose,

I've been clicking through your blog and have enjoyed it. Good stuff. I'll let my wife know. She likes pretty much the same things you do.

By the way, I'm saddened about the heat you've taken for referencing my blog (liver-and-onions.blogspot.com). Not really surprising, though.

Well, carry-on in free-grace fashion.

The Lord bless.

tjp

By Anonymous, at 2/16/2007 6:18 AM
I've been studying Calvinism for over a year now and wanted to share some papers I've written. I don't blog yet so I was wondering if I could email them to you and we could discuss back and forth. I'm a parent of 4 so I know how busy you must be and will understand if you'd rather not. adamjohnson@jham.org

By Anonymous, at 2/16/2007 3:57 PM
Anyone who is certain that they are eternally secure by taking Christ at His word in His promise that guarantees eternal life to the believer in Him for it, is eternally saved.

In other words, if you believe that you are saved through faith alone into Christ and His promise, you are saved.

Anyone who has ever trusted Christ as the Guarantor of eternal life to the believer in Him is presently saved.

Many people have taken Christ at His word and were saved. Many of those later fall to bad soteriological and sanctification doctrine.

If someone has believed and only believed that he must endure to the end in faithfulness and works, and die in such a state, he has yet to be saved.

See some quotes from Reformed authors:

"Heaven can only be reached by continuing along the sole path that leads thither, namely, the 'Narrow Way.' Those who persevere not in faith and holiness, love and obedience, will assuredly perish" (A.W. Pink, "Eternal Security", chapter 3, online edition).

"There is a deadly and damnable heresy being widely propagated today to the effect that, if a sinner truly accepts Christ as his personal Saviour, no matter how he lives afterwards, he cannot perish. That is a satanic lie, for it is at direct variance with the teaching of the Word of truth. Something more than believing in Christ is necessary to ensure the soul's reaching heaven." (A.W. Pink as quoted by Iain H. Murray in "The Life of Arthur W. Pink" pgs 248-249)

"...we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith." (John Piper "TULIP: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism...", pg 25)

"I was asked the question about a year ago by a group of pastors in in Pennsylvania... 'What do you think is the one doctrine that is the most destructive in the life of the church...today? And I said, the doctrine of Eternal Security... God justifies, but man must have faith and he must obey.... Romans 2:13-14, when it says the one who obeys the law is justified, it means exactly that. That is not a hypothetical verse, ladies and gentlemen, the way many Protestants have read it. And when James 2:13-14 says, 'The doers of the law shall be justified,' it means the doers of the law shall be justified. That's why Paul and James are not in conflict...Let me suggest [also] Ephesians 2:8-10...We are saved unto good works. They're necessary consequential works. Without them there is no salvation. Right?" (John Armstrong "Reflections from Jonathan Edwards on the Current Debate over Justification by Faith Alone").

"Reader, if there is a reserve in your obedience, you are on the way to hell" (A.W. Pink, "Studies on Saving Faith" Part 2, online edition)

"Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness. And they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort." (Charles Hodge, "A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians", pg 181)

Antonio

By Antonio, at 2/16/2007 4:45 PM
Oh hey Rose and thanks John. Thanks also for that definition on tripe. Word for the month:-)

By Bhedr, at 2/16/2007 4:45 PM
There's a lot in Antonio's reply. Again, if you want to sort out the doctrinal reasoning behind the Calvinist postion, then take the time to look over the web page already referred to: http://www.corkfpc.com/mcgoverncalvinism.html
I just can't take the time to re-argue this position. My friendly opponent gave similar quotes and seems to take the same position as Antonio. The important thing to remember is that Calvinism wants to give God all the glory for the infallible salvation of His elect. We want to avoid the idea that men can *profess* to be saved and yet live like the devil and fall back upon an empty mantra: "But I walked the isle and accepted Jesus as my Saviour many years ago." This is all argued out in the above page.

This current debate started when Liver and Onions has practically damned all Calvinists in hell. Some Calvinists just *might* be saved. Antonio entered the debate and likened Calvinism to Mormonism and Romanism. I asked 3 questions:

1) Are Calvinists automatically damned because of their doctrine?
2) Am I an apostate because I abandoned my non Calvinist view of salvation to embrace the Calvinist one
3) Should non Calvinists who believe Calvinists are saved and fellowship with them be regarded as compromisers and no better than the ecumenists who accept the professed Christianity of Rome?

As I read it (I stand to be corrected) I have received the following answers.

1) Not if I once made a genuine non Calvinist profession of faith.
2) I can fall into Calvinism and still be saved. If I try Mormonism too and become Joseph Smith's successor in Utah or join Rome and become the first Ulster Protestant to ascend to Peter's chair, well and good. Not the best advert for Evangelical Christianity, but I am still saved nevertheless.
3) No reply yet.

By Colin Maxwell, at 2/18/2007 4:27 AM
You guys just kept this going after I had gone to bed.
Goodnightsafehome - I think Calvinists are saved. I am married to one, although he is not of the "doctrines of grace" variety. I think your comments are interesting. Antonio makes a good point. If one comes to Christ with great expectations over what he can contribute to his own final salvation, then is he really coming to Christ? I think not. I don't think this is a problem with most Calvinists, though.

ONLY GOD KNOWS! This is true of all of us, whatever stripe. God searches the heart and knows who/what we are trusting and how we trusted at the moment of salvation. More to the point, we can know who/what we ourselves trusted when we came to Christ, but we can't see into another's heart. We just have to go by what they tell us about what they believe/believed.

By Rose~, at 2/23/2007 9:36 AM
Adam Johnson,
Start a blog and then give us the address! It will not take a long time, really. You don't have to do the whole comment thing. You can just start a blog and post your papers. Then, come back here and let us know the address.

By Rose~, at 2/23/2007 9:40 AM
david wyatt, tjp, and todd, brian,

Thanks for the visit and the comments!

By Rose~, at 2/23/2007 9:41 AM
Antonio,

So to answer your question, Calvinists can be saved, providing they work hard enough for final salvation.

You provacetuer!

(Did I spell that right?)

By Rose~, at 2/23/2007 9:41 AM
Hi Rose,

I am a Calvinist preacher and I have never instructed anyone either from the pulpit or on a 1-1 personal basis to "contribute to his own final salvation." I am not sure where Antonio is coming from on this one. I tell the sinner that he is "without strength" (Romans 5:6) and can contribute nothing, either before or after to his own final salvation. It is all of God and all of grace, without works of any kind (Ephesians 2:8-9) Even though the Bible talks much about the Christian overcoming the world etc., and this is not a passive overcoming but an active one, hence the armour of God etc., yet there is no merit whatsoever in this overcoming. Any one saying that there is merit in overcoming might as well say that there is merit in believing or calling upon God's name in the first place.

You are entirely correct to say that this is not a problem with most Calvinists. Indeed, I wonder how it can be a problem with *any* Calvinist, because there is nothing in standard Calvinism that demands it, and everything that rejects it. Calvinism is balanced in that it rejects the idea that God rewards our efforts on one part and rejects the notion that we can just sit back and float to Heaven on the other, regardless if our profession of faith is empty and the fruit just isn't there. Did I say "Calvinism?" I have non Calvinist friends who profess the same thing. It is just the old school Christianity that is shared by both Reformed and non Reformed Christians alike.

I see our friend over in Liver and Onions is still working himself into a lather over Calvinism, or what he perceives to be Calvinism. I haven't bothered with him at all on his comments page. I must be honest and say that I tend to avoid the blog comment pages of those whose strength seems to be in hectoring their opponents with absolutely nothing positive to say to them or to invite them in "for a wee chat" on subjects on which we differ. There are other pages out there (including yours) where the debate can be vigorous enough, without being rude or hectoring.

By Colin Maxwell, at 2/24/2007 6:36 AM
Ummmm . . . you are a Calvinist because you are a member of a Calvinist church!

By Anonymous, at 3/04/2007 8:51 AM
Who wrote that?!
The church I go to is "Calvinist" in the sense that most everyone believes in ETERNAL SECURITY and that SALVATION IS A GIFT NOT OF WORKS. From what I understand ... in the last 100 or so years around these parts, that was what "Calvinist" really meant to people. A majority in our church would not recognize the newer "Doctrines of Grace" Calvinism.

So ... it depends on what you mean by a "Calvinst" church. Capiche?

Is that Bob? :~)

By Rose~, at 3/06/2007 1:01 PM
Sorry.

I was laughing too hard!

Emmanual is now SOLIDLY Calvinist.

Your pastor is a featured speaker at TRTC. He is a former staff member/pastor at Masters College.

His mentor is John MacArthur.

That's what I mean by Calvinist. What do you mean? That he has to have "Calvin" tatooed on his forehead???

Has James White preached to you yet on the doctrines of grace?

ANY claim that your church is not Calvinistic is disingenuous or dishonest.

DeCourcy is sharing his pulpit with Tom Asco. Who is he? What does he believe?

His church constitution and statement of faith says this about salvation: "We believe that , in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; that it is effected, in a manner above our comprehension, by the power of the Holy Spirit in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; and that its proper evidence appears in holy fruits of repentance and faith and newness of life."

Is that what you believe? Your pastor is in close and intimate fellowship with that man and his gospel.

You are blind. The Gospel that USED to be preached at Emmanuel is no longer preached there.

It has been changed.

And it is now "another gospel".

I don't want to hurt your feelings, I just think a little bit of honesty is called for.

The eternal destiny of so many people is at stake and they deserve better. They should see you repudiate your false gospel preaching pastor.

By Anonymous, at 3/06/2007 9:52 PM
Oh, it is THAT anonymous.

Anonymous,
Don't laugh so hard.

A preacher does not a church make, first of all. Preachers come and go. Secondly, our particular preacher, while it is true what you say about him being a featured speaker at the TRTC, is NOT the TRTC ... and he is not Tom Ascol. Find a quote from him, Philip De Courcy and pick on that. I happen to think he is a somewhat mild Calvinist, even if his friends are extreme.

Either way, I appreciate him and have never heard him preach "another gospel."

pfffft!

Why don't you ever email me? Maybe you could explain better in an email. What are you afraid of? Anonymous things always carry a lower credibility for me.

By Anonymous, at 3/07/2007 9:29 AM
Rose

Two things:
[i] You are right when you say that Anonymous comments have a lower rating. Especially if they snipe at you.

[ii] Genuinely and lovingly interested in "the newer "Doctrines of Grace" Calvinism". How old/young are these? In your own time.

By Colin Maxwell, at 3/07/2007 1:32 PM
Colin,
"Genuinely and lovingly interested..."
How sweet. I feel like you say that as a wise uncle or something...

I do have a basis for saying "newer" and here it is...
It might be different in Ireland, but around these parts, in the GARBC circles ... (General Association of Regular Baptist Churches) and other Baptist circles, there has been a certain cap on Calvinistic thought. That is changing...

I did not mean to say that the "d.o.g." were newer altogether ... I know better than that... but "newer" in influence around these parts and in these circles.

Here is a good example of the naiveté about "Calvinism" by Dr. Ron Comfort:
When I was a college student, I was naive enough to think that everybody was either an Arminian or
a Calvinist, and the determining factor was whether or not they accepted the security of the believer.
When somebody would come to you and say, “Are you a Calvinist?,” if you believed in the security of
the believer, you would say, “Yes, I’m a Calvinist.” Later on as I got to studying more about Calvinism,
I realized that there was more involved in Calvinism than the security of the believer.

I exerpted that from an article here.

I know people, who, while not that "green" about it, they just won't carry the thoughts out to the extremes that the "d.o.g." do. They will say they believe in the doctrine of "Total Depravity" but they don't interpret this as "Inability". TD just means to them that man has nothing good to offer to God ... he is tainted by sin. It doesn't mean that He is not able to believe something that God has shown through the testimony of the HS.

These same "Calvinists" will not say that Christ did not die for all, but that His death was not "efficacious" for all.

They don't believe in "regeneration preceding faith" or that "faith is a gift."

They don't recognize "perseverence of the saints" as the "d.o.g." spells it out, but they would simply present it as resembling "Eternal Security" or (as now scourged by MacArthur Calvinists) "OSAS."

They will tell you that the way they were taught it at BBC or FaithBBC was not what is being spelled out in the "d.o.g."

Very simple.

While I might agree with someone who says that the "d.o.g." is just carrying out these principles to their logical conclusions ....

There it is. "Calb=vinism" in the Midwest of the US was not the same as the "doctrines of grace" that we now see in the Midwest of the US.

There never used to be much of a "Reformed Baptist" church in existence either. That would have been thought to be a contradiction of terms.

Do I make any sense, Colin?

By Rose~, at 3/12/2007 11:24 AM
Golly, I made some mistakes. I meant to spell "Calvinism" when I wrote this: Calb=vinism

Also, I said this:
While I might agree with someone who says that the "d.o.g." is just carrying out these principles to their logical conclusions ....

But I meant to say
While I might agree with someone who says that the "d.o.g." is just carrying out TULIP in its totality to its logical conclusions ...

By Rose~, at 3/12/2007 12:55 PM

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask Hungry/6 - Jodie The Stumbling Block - Bobby Sanc's Blog - Michele

Friday, February 09, 2007

A Blog I Just Discovered

74 Comments:

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask

Hungry/6 - Jodie

The Stumbling Block - Bobby

Sanc's Blog - Michele