DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<
form action=&amp
;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
ost&
quot; target=&am
p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
;_s-xclick&a
mp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
ue=&
quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
e=&q
uot;submit&a
mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
&quo
t;&g
t; &
lt;img alt=&
amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Words of God - Christian Theology w/Bladerunner
*****************************************************
#Post#: 6868--------------------------------------------------
Re: From a Calvinist perspective
By: guest8 Date: July 6, 2019, 9:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=347.msg6732#msg6732
date=1561825875]
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=347.msg6594#msg6594
date=1561464319]
[quote author=Grace_Accepted link=topic=347.msg6593#msg6593
date=1561464090]
In the parable of The Sower, Jesus taught us that salvation was
like a seed cast into soil. The seed reacted with all of the
types of soil accept for the hardened path. The ultimate
results was dictated by the type of soil and not the seed. The
seed was faithful to do what it was meant to do and either the
soil had what was necessary to carry resulting plant to fruition
or it did not.
The good soil was predestined by the farmer to bear fruit but
the other types of soil were not. Do you believe that this
sheds any light on predestination?
[/quote][shadow=green,left]That's why I use Miracle Gro
!!![/shadow]
[/quote]😁
[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left]To Grace_accepted......you said: "The good
soil was predestined by the farmer to bear fruit but the other
types of soil were not. Do you believe that this sheds any
light on predestination?"
No, I do not see "predestination" in these passages.but rather
the different types of faith that is received.... These parables
were for the benefit of the Jewish people present at that time
although it applies to our situation today.
Blade
[/shadow]
#Post#: 6874--------------------------------------------------
Re: From a Calvinist perspective
By: guest55 Date: July 7, 2019, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Grace_Accepted link=topic=347.msg6593#msg6593
date=1561464090]
[shadow=blue,left]To Grace_accepted......you said: "The good
soil was predestined by the farmer to bear fruit but the other
types of soil were not. Do you believe that this sheds any
light on predestination?"
No, I do not see "predestination" in these passages.but rather
the different types of faith that is received.... These parables
were for the benefit of the Jewish people present at that time
although it applies to our situation today.
Blade
[/shadow]
[/quote]
I know it is possible to extend a metaphor too far but if the
seed represents the Kingdom of God and the soil rpresents the
mind of the receiver then we could reasonably extrapolate the
field as being the sowers predetermined target for his seed.
Certainly he had put thought and effort into preparing that
section of ground for his seed. The other types of ground were
seeded incidentally because of his efforts aimed at the tilled
soil. The ground could not prepare itself and depended on the
farmer to be made ready to receive the seed.
Just some thoughts
#Post#: 6887--------------------------------------------------
Re: From a Calvinist perspective
By: guest58 Date: July 7, 2019, 10:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[size=12pt][quote author=Bladerunner
link=topic=347.msg4159#msg4159 date=1551226870]
So Ted T. ...after all that you said above, I am still lost on
what your position is concerning the Bible and the fact that
GOD's WORD said in:
Romans 8:29-30..."For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he
might be the firstborn among many brethren. v30...Moreover whom
he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called,
them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
glorified."
If you believe in Jesus and His WORD, the Bible then You have to
believe in the above scripture! Simple as that. You either do
or you don't!
Blade[/quote]
My goodness...you say that as is if it were some great
challenge. I believe this is scripture but I bet I do not agree
with your interpretation of it. Sit comfy, this is long...
Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate
to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can
see that the predestination of the elect is based on the
foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse,
the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it
also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same
as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and
reasonable link to make?
GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not
everyone will become like Jesus, as Rom 8:29 just said
predestination means and as per Matthew 7:21 – 23 Then I will
tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you
evildoers!’ which tells us what knowing means, emphasising the
idea that loving is knowing and knowing about has no love.
James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the
demons believe that--and shudder. Jesus obviously knew about the
demons and knew about the miracle workers but this knowing
contained no love as it is plain, He never knew them. Revelation
20:15, And whosoever was not found written in the book of life
was cast into the lake of fire. This means that foreknow must
carry the idea of approval. As one commentator stated it, “Whom
HE foreknew” is virtually equivalent to “whom HE foreloved”.
Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had
been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis
does GOD "before life" love some and not the rest.
1. Merit based Election before Creation?
The basis can not be, as some have suggested, some merit in the
creatures, first because no one exists yet; second, because the
ones HE foreloves will be just as defiled in life as any other;
and third, because the Scriptures say election is not on the
basis of the creature's works or choices in life, but rather on
HIS unmerited favour: Romans 9:11 For the children being not yet
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of
GOD according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM
that calleth... Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of GOD that sheweth mercy.
Therefore, we can surmise that GOD does not "before life" love
some because HE has divined that they will have some merit in
their life.
2. Election to Damnation before Creation Serves HIS Purpose?
Others have suggested that GOD "before life" loved only some
because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE
before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like
this:
The loved ones' eternal joy is directly proportional to their
knowledge, appreciation, of GOD and the wonderfulness of their
salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the
eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that
is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin, and HIS "before life"
decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal
blessings supposedly occur for the rest.
First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is
made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all
lived forever, that is, if HE "before life" loved them all.
These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness
(retribution, wrath) holiness and omnipotence.
Secondly, the truth regarding the elect's end apart from
Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge
makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for
this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully
appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends. Others
even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely
necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be
fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation:
In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the
truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect
appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that
this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made
possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and
judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection
and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete
imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had
HE not saved us.
Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on
many accounts.
First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for
why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not
choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and
unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without
just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.
Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that
it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that
HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to
its highest potential. In other words we must accept, for
example, that in GOD’S world one has to first be sick in order
to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more
sinful (or sick) the better].
Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of
how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative /
perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the
moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for
the increased appreciation, perfection, and not the quantity of
persons therein.
Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the
individual creature in the eyes of GOD.
Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge / forelove did
not include everyone cannot be found in HIS divination of merit
in some creatures and since a reasonable answer has not been put
forward for why GOD does it particularly, we are left with but
two conclusions; we must either look for the answer elsewhere,
in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis
of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance. This would
mean that there is no reason for HIS particular "before life"
love.
[Aside: as I understand it, this is Calvin's failure to
understand this doctrine correctly, especially in his doctrine
of UNconditional election]
GOD's election / foreknowing is thus based on eenie, meenie,
minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that?
How much better to admit that we should start looking in some
area we have not looked yet, and since we cannot find any of
those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD
to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?
Now, according to pre-conception theology, the "before life"
love (foreknowledge) of GOD, that is, HIS pre-life approval of
some and rejection of the rest is based on the prior uncoerced
(that is, free will) choice of the creature (in Sheol, before
physical creation) and on HIS infinite love, which means that
HE will never stop loving anyone who can possibly ever come to
glorify HIM. Herein is the reason why HE loved some "before
this life" and why HE did not love the rest.
Some had chosen to eternally defile themselves and some had not.
Some had decided to never ever fulfil HIS purpose in our
creation and some were still able to fulfil HIS purpose, some
willingly, (angels) and others only if HE was infallibly
gracious (election) to them (His fallen church). Yes and He
predestined these to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, and
HE predestined the other evil ones for the Day of Judgement and
established them for the correction of the fallen elect.
Now, I ask you, which doctrine is the more scriptural and
reasonable and compatible with the attributes of GOD?
2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy
calling, not according to our works, but according to HIS own
purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the
world began. This Scripture does not prove that we existed
before our conception. The reason I am including it is that I
believe that it does not invalidate preconception theology, and
I am sure a lot of people will think that it and others like it
do.
May I submit that when the Scriptures speak of works in relation
to our election, they are referring to only our works after
we're born, ie, no one was elected on account of any works they
would do in this life.
Now, if there is anyone who would like to disagree with me on
this and would like to debate whether Paul intended that our
pre-earthly life works were also to be included in the works
that were excluded as part of the basis of GOD's election, I
would be very interested in seeing your argument. I suppose this
isn't necessary, but I would like to (first) point out that any
such argument must admit to our pre-existence.
The second thing I would like to point out is that we were
called according to HIS purpose. This must mean so that we could
fulfil HIS purpose for us. But if this is so, then there must
be an uncoerced choice on our part if we are ever to have the
possibility of glorifying GOD. His purpose for us necessitates a
free will choice to join, agree to, that purpose or it is a tape
recorder type of agreement.
Therefore I say that being called according to HIS purpose and
grace is almost exactly the same as saying, being called in
accord with our uncoerced choice and HIS covenant, and if making
that choice is a work, since earthly works are out, then it is
the same as saying, Being called in accord with a pre-conception
work and HIS gracious covenant to those who performed that work.
The third thing I would like to point out is that the angels are
elected too. 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the
Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels... Angels are a lot
different than men (at least, that is what many believe), i.e.,
they do not have what is usually called “racial solidarity”.
This means that they have to make all their own choices. No one
else can make them for them and they can not be held accountable
for someone else's evil choices. In other words, Adam's choices
do not affect them at all (supposedly). Perhaps you would like
to tell me on what basis GOD elected only some of them?
If it was not on the basis of their individual choices, then
they had to be elected before the satanic rebellion, at least.
But if GOD's election took place before the satanic rebellion,
would this not lead us into the pretty incredulous situation of
some unblemished creatures being unjustly un-predestined to
remain in heaven, (or: predestined for Hell)? And what
reasonable basis can we put forward for this situation other
than HE simply did not want them to be with HIM forever? This
situation does not look too good, does it?
Well then, what if no one was elected before the rebellion, that
is, what if GOD's election took place after the rebellion? Then
GOD's election took place after they all had made an eternal
choice, and presumably that choice would be taken into account
when GOD was doing HIS electing. It would have to be if HE was
holy and just.
Now, the main thing I am trying to bring out with all of this is
that when we just begin to consider the election of angels, we
run into some pretty unreasonable implications if we leave out
their choice as being a part of the basis of their election, and
the only other real alternative necessitates that we accept that
their eternal choice was at least a part of the basis of their
election.
Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of their
choice / works being a part of the basis of their election, why
can that not be a part of the basis of ours too?
May I submit that the only thing going against that possibility
is the presupposition that Paul, in 2 Timothy 1:9 is excluding
all our works, and I have to admit, that is what it seems to
say, that is, what it seems to say until we look at Paul's
definition of elective works in Romans 9:11 For the children
being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that
the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not of
works, but of HIM that calleth.
Now, I do not think that I will get much argument when I say
that the works of 2 Timothy 1:9 are the same works as are
mentioned in this verse in Romans. In other words, Paul defines
works the same in both verses. And just how does he define
works? Well, in Romans, Paul is referring to Genesis 25:22 And
the children struggled together within her. The children are
Jacob and Esau, and Paul says that at the time of GOD's
statement to Rebecca, to the effect that the elder shall serve
the younger, that neither of them had done any good or evil
(works).
But the reason Rebecca had prayed to GOD was that she was having
such a hard time of it because Jacob and Esau were fighting so
much in the womb. Now, if they were fighting, at least one, if
not both, had to be being evil, that is, doing evil works, since
it is impossible that both were following the Holy Spirit in
their struggles with each other. So, although it is possible
that neither was being good, it is impossible that neither was
being evil. Well now, we either have a blatant contradiction and
must dismiss Paul's works theology as being somewhat amiss, or
we have to admit that the Pauline definition of works does not
exclude pre-birth works from being a part of the basis of our
election.
In fact, by his omission of their pre-birth works in those works
that are excluded as being a part of the basis of our election,
he must be inferring that some pre-birth works have something to
do with it. To say this all another way, what we have here in
Romans is a classic example of a Scripture with some missing
words, that is, what Paul is really saying is, neither having
done any good or evil (works on the post-birth side of the womb)
that the purpose of GOD according to election might stand, not
of works (done on the post-birth side of the womb) but of HIM
that calleth (when one is on the post-birth side of the womb).
Thus we can see that Paul did not exclude our pre-birth works
from being a part of the basis of our election.
#Post#: 6915--------------------------------------------------
Re: From a Calvinist perspective
By: guest8 Date: July 10, 2019, 8:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=347.msg6887#msg6887
date=1562557256]
[size=12pt][quote author=Bladerunner
link=topic=347.msg4159#msg4159 date=1551226870]
So Ted T. ...after all that you said above, I am still lost on
what your position is concerning the Bible and the fact that
GOD's WORD said in:
Romans 8:29-30..."For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he
might be the firstborn among many brethren. v30...Moreover whom
he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called,
them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
glorified."
If you believe in Jesus and His WORD, the Bible then You have to
believe in the above scripture! Simple as that. You either do
or you don't!
Blade[/quote]
My goodness...you say that as is if it were some great
challenge. I believe this is scripture but I bet I do not agree
with your interpretation of it. Sit comfy, this is long...
Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate
to be conformed to the image of HIS Son. From this verse we can
see that the predestination of the elect is based on the
foreknowledge of GOD. Now everyone admits that in this verse,
the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it
also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same
as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and
reasonable link to make?[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left]Ted. Yes, foreknowledge would mean before we
are born and Yes, in that verse it could and probably does mean
before creation yet it does not say so. Our created spirit life
begins when GOD breaths the First breath into your nostrils. Or
do you think it just happens and you breath that first breath
automatically?
Blade[/shadow]
[/quote]
#Post#: 6917--------------------------------------------------
Re: From a Calvinist perspective
By: suvel Date: July 10, 2019, 8:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=347.msg3707#msg3707
date=1549428749]
Great post Bladerunner, and I too agree with much of the
Calvinist doctrine except the free will part. I also find it
hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell
and God knows it ahead of time. Why bring them into the world? I
have see some good Calvinist VS Open Theist debates. Maybe we
could post a good one here and comment as we watch?
[/quote]
John Calvin was born yesterday 510 years ago in Noyon France.
Seldom has any figure been so universally revered and reviled at
the same time.
Mostly he is reviled ( by believers as well) by those who’ve
never read him.
Calvin did not make up the word “predestination”.
He found it in Holy Scripture.
It is almost impossible to believe that he wrote Institutes of
the Christian Religion in his mid-twenties.
He sustained profundity, intensity and variety on every page at
a level unimaginable.
There were over a thousand years between Augustine and Calvin.
It’s been over half a thousand years since Calvin.
Whence cometh such another? It is hard to imagine, yet we await.
#Post#: 7016--------------------------------------------------
Re: From a Calvinist perspective
By: guest8 Date: July 12, 2019, 8:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=suvel link=topic=347.msg6917#msg6917
date=1562809616]
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=347.msg3707#msg3707
date=1549428749]
Great post Bladerunner, and I too agree with much of the
Calvinist doctrine except the free will part. I also find it
hard to accept that some people were born to go straight to hell
and God knows it ahead of time. Why bring them into the world? I
have see some good Calvinist VS Open Theist debates. Maybe we
could post a good one here and comment as we watch?
[/quote]
John Calvin was born yesterday 510 years ago in Noyon France.
Seldom has any figure been so universally revered and reviled at
the same time.
Mostly he is reviled ( by believers as well) by those who’ve
never read him.
Calvin did not make up the word “predestination”.
He found it in Holy Scripture.
It is almost impossible to believe that he wrote Institutes of
the Christian Religion in his mid-twenties.
He sustained profundity, intensity and variety on every page at
a level unimaginable.
There were over a thousand years between Augustine and Calvin.
It’s been over half a thousand years since Calvin.
Whence cometh such another? It is hard to imagine, yet we await.
[/quote]
[shadow=blue,left] good post suvel
Blade[/shadow]
#Post#: 7783--------------------------------------------------
Re: From a Calvinist perspective
By: guest58 Date: September 2, 2019, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=347.msg6915#msg6915
date=1562808671]Ted. Yes, foreknowledge would mean before we are
born and Yes, in that verse it could and probably does mean
before creation yet it does not say so. Our created spirit life
begins when GOD breaths the First breath into your nostrils. Or
do you think it just happens and you breath that first breath
automatically? Blade[/quote]
Our creation as spirit persons was loooong before the creation
of the physical universe which all the sons of GOD saw Job 38:7
and sang HIS praise. When the breath from GOD moves sinners
from the spirit world into the world of man it is called a
sowing, not a creation because the devil sows also.
#Post#: 7786--------------------------------------------------
Re: From a Calvinist perspective
By: guest8 Date: September 2, 2019, 7:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Ted T. link=topic=347.msg7783#msg7783
date=1567457310]
[quote author=Bladerunner link=topic=347.msg6915#msg6915
date=1562808671]Ted. Yes, foreknowledge would mean before we are
born and Yes, in that verse it could and probably does mean
before creation yet it does not say so. Our created spirit life
begins when GOD breaths the First breath into your nostrils. Or
do you think it just happens and you breath that first breath
automatically? Blade[/quote]
Our creation as spirit persons was loooong before the creation
of the physical universe which all the sons of GOD saw Job 38:7
and sang HIS praise. When the breath from GOD moves sinners
from the spirit world into the world of man it is called a
sowing, not a creation because the devil sows also.
[/quote]
It seems you have lost all contact for the Bible. really sad.
Blade
#Post#: 14777--------------------------------------------------
Re: From a Calvinist Perspective: Comments
By: patrick jane Date: July 2, 2020, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/118182.jpg?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/july/aimee-byrd-genevan-commons-reformed-opc-facebook-comments.html
How a Reformed Facebook Group’s Private Comments Turned Into a
Public Dispute
The social media saga involving Aimee Byrd and Genevan Commons
calls for discipline, justice, and restoration beyond “cancel
culture.”
In an era when swift social media reactions and public
repudiations offer an instantaneous form of rebuke and
discipline, what role does the church have in holding its
leaders and members accountable for online speech?
Aimee Byrd has found herself at the center of this question. The
author of Why Can’t We Be Friends?, Byrd has come under fire
from some within her Reformed theological tradition for her
latest book, Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
The fight has largely played out on blogs and in private online
discussions, but also has Byrd and her critics each calling for
Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) sessions (church elders) to
take action.
Two weeks ago, screenshots from a private Facebook group called
Genevan Commons were posted on an anonymous website that
describes itself as an “archive of reviling, cyberbullying,
harassment, sexism, and racism among church officers and
laypeople.”
Byrd’s supporters have challenged the harsh comments within the
Facebook group’s threads, including remarks that address her
motives, appearance, and relationship with her husband. They’ve
asked whether the leaders responsible will be held accountable
for the remarks.
“We are greatly concerned that officers of the church, who have
sworn to be accountable to ‘their brethren in the Lord’ would
attempt to hide behind a group that pledges itself to secrecy,
as if ‘locker room talk’ could somehow be exempted from the
accountability of the church on the basis of an alleged right to
privacy,” read a statement signed by several dozen OPC pastors
and elders.
Byrd was well known for blogging as “The Housewife Theologian”
at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and for co-hosting
the Mortification of Spin podcast with Carl Trueman and Todd
Pruitt. The Alliance ended its years-long partnership with Byrd
earlier this month after she declined to answer questions
related to her latest book.
While Genevan Commons represents a small sliver of the Reformed
corner of the Christian internet, believers across traditions
have followed Byrd’s saga as a case of online chatter turned
ugly.
In the quick back-and-forths in posts and comments, arguments
over competing doctrine can easily collapse into character
assassination and unbiblical speech, said Daniel Darling, author
of A Way with Words: Using Our Online Conversations for Good.
“I think a lot of pastors and leaders forget that when they’re
online, they’re in public,” said Darling, vice president for
communication at National Religious Broadcasters.
Joe Thorn, a pastor and podcaster based in Illinois, said
pastors whose discussions and ministry extend online need to
become fluent in apologizing for their mistakes. He told CT he’s
seen too many fellow pastors respond to online criticism by
defending their own stances and growing more convinced of their
own righteousness.
Thorn himself has had to apologize, publicly and privately, for
things he’s said online. “My life is accountable to the elders
and congregation of Redeemer Fellowship,” he said—and that
includes the comments he makes on his social media accounts and
as co-host of the Doctrine and Devotion podcast.
In Byrd’s case, most of her fiercest critics are OPC pastors and
elders. The denomination is relatively small, with about 300
congregations across the US and Canada. As a member, Byrd
pledges to submit to the governance of her congregation and
“heed its discipline, even in case you should be found
delinquent in doctrine or life.”
So far, her leaders have not subjected her to church discipline
over her books or blog posts, which she says are in line with
the confessions of her faith.
But that hasn’t stopped her critics. When members of the Genevan
Commons found Byrd’s accountability lacking, they wrote blog
posts with specifics about how to oppose what they described as
Byrd’s feminism. Byrd told CT that her detractors called ahead
to at least one of her speaking engagements to inform the
retreat center of concerns over Byrd’s teachings.
Group leaders have defended their remarks and the Genevan
Commons group.
“The idea that I’ve tried to create a place where we are
unaccountable is foolish,” wrote Shane Anderson on The Daily
Genevan in April. “In life many discussions are considered
appropriately private, and yet the Christian ought to know he
can be brought to account both by church discipline now and on
the day of judgment before Christ. I have no problem with that,
and they should stop pretending that I have some secret, hidden
agenda or actions.”
The anonymous website GCScreenshots featured not only the
Facebook group’s remarks against Byrd and other Reformed women,
but also a list of the hundreds of Facebook users who belonged
to the group, including the church affiliations of the pastors
and elders who were members.
Todd Pruitt, who has publicly defended Byrd, lamented that the
hundreds of users who never slandered Byrd appeared on the list
of members. Both he and fellow podcast co-host Carl Trueman
heard from dozens of men who belonged to the group but didn’t
realize it or never commented. One pastor told Pruitt his wife’s
employer was contacted over his membership in the group.
Steven Wedgeworth, a Presbyterian Church in America pastor who
appeared to make crude comments in a screenshot posted by the
site, alleging that the images were edited to omit context or to
wrongly indicate that some of his negative comments were about
Byrd.
Byrd fired back on her blog last week, disputing Wedgeworth for
minimizing the group’s slanderous comments.
“I’m tired of making a case that is blatantly obvious,” wrote
Byrd, referencing that multiple sources have surfaced
screenshots showing similar patterns of harmful language. “Why
do I have to say all this? Why am I the one defending my
reputation? When will there be a conversation about
qualifications for those in spiritual authority over Christ’s
sheep?”
Concerned OPC elders have been working to assemble evidence of
sinful speech from the group. Mark Garcia, an OPC minister and
president of the Greystone Theological Institute in Coraopolis,
Pennsylvania, said denominational leaders had contacted him
privately for advice on the best way for a presbytery to
discipline those who penned the comments in question.
When Garcia saw rude messages in the Genevan Commons group, he
says, he left the group and used his personal Facebook page to
repudiate the sinful things others said about Byrd. (Former
members say the group still exists, but it’s smaller and more
tightly moderated.).
Garcia believes it’s fair to critique Byrd’s work online, but a
discussion of “the ethics of her behavior, deceit, and the like”
does not “belong in those contexts, in social media, or anywhere
else except for the one context where the Lord has provided for
her accountability: her session,” he told CT.
Garcia is continuing to pray that God will “bring swift justice,
peace, and unity to his people in the ministry of his wise
Spirit.” He fears the process will be hampered by allegations of
slander both on the part of Byrd’s critics and her supporters.
But there’s good reason the church doesn’t match the pace of
so-called cancel culture, leaders say. Within the church, the
goal of discipline is restoration and growth in godliness, as
opposed to in the broader culture, where the goal is punitive
silencing and ostracizing.
“The wheels of Presbyterian justice move slowly. There’s wisdom
in that,” said Pruitt, who recently deleted his Twitter account
out of concern he was spending too much time in fruitless
debates. “Sometimes in our zeal to be vindicated we can cause
collateral damage that’s ungodly.”
The opportunities to speak out and offer influence also heap
additional responsibility on Christian leaders. Just look at the
warning of “stricter judgment” in James 3:1, followed by the
instructions around taming the tongue, said Darling.
“When you speak online, people are watching. We have to weigh
our words,” he said. “We forget that bearing false witness
online is an actual sin.”
#Post#: 17925--------------------------------------------------
Re: From a Calvinist Perspective: Comments
By: guest8 Date: September 23, 2020, 7:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=patrick jane link=topic=347.msg14777#msg14777
date=1593705192]
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/118182.jpg?w=700[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/july/aimee-byrd-genevan-commons-reformed-opc-facebook-comments.html
How a Reformed Facebook Group’s Private Comments Turned Into a
Public Dispute
The social media saga involving Aimee Byrd and Genevan Commons
calls for discipline, justice, and restoration beyond “cancel
culture.”
In an era when swift social media reactions and public
repudiations offer an instantaneous form of rebuke and
discipline, what role does the church have in holding its
leaders and members accountable for online speech?
Aimee Byrd has found herself at the center of this question. The
author of Why Can’t We Be Friends?, Byrd has come under fire
from some within her Reformed theological tradition for her
latest book, Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
The fight has largely played out on blogs and in private online
discussions, but also has Byrd and her critics each calling for
Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) sessions (church elders) to
take action.
Two weeks ago, screenshots from a private Facebook group called
Genevan Commons were posted on an anonymous website that
describes itself as an “archive of reviling, cyberbullying,
harassment, sexism, and racism among church officers and
laypeople.”
Byrd’s supporters have challenged the harsh comments within the
Facebook group’s threads, including remarks that address her
motives, appearance, and relationship with her husband. They’ve
asked whether the leaders responsible will be held accountable
for the remarks.
“We are greatly concerned that officers of the church, who have
sworn to be accountable to ‘their brethren in the Lord’ would
attempt to hide behind a group that pledges itself to secrecy,
as if ‘locker room talk’ could somehow be exempted from the
accountability of the church on the basis of an alleged right to
privacy,” read a statement signed by several dozen OPC pastors
and elders.
Byrd was well known for blogging as “The Housewife Theologian”
at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and for co-hosting
the Mortification of Spin podcast with Carl Trueman and Todd
Pruitt. The Alliance ended its years-long partnership with Byrd
earlier this month after she declined to answer questions
related to her latest book.
While Genevan Commons represents a small sliver of the Reformed
corner of the Christian internet, believers across traditions
have followed Byrd’s saga as a case of online chatter turned
ugly.
In the quick back-and-forths in posts and comments, arguments
over competing doctrine can easily collapse into character
assassination and unbiblical speech, said Daniel Darling, author
of A Way with Words: Using Our Online Conversations for Good.
“I think a lot of pastors and leaders forget that when they’re
online, they’re in public,” said Darling, vice president for
communication at National Religious Broadcasters.
Joe Thorn, a pastor and podcaster based in Illinois, said
pastors whose discussions and ministry extend online need to
become fluent in apologizing for their mistakes. He told CT he’s
seen too many fellow pastors respond to online criticism by
defending their own stances and growing more convinced of their
own righteousness.
Thorn himself has had to apologize, publicly and privately, for
things he’s said online. “My life is accountable to the elders
and congregation of Redeemer Fellowship,” he said—and that
includes the comments he makes on his social media accounts and
as co-host of the Doctrine and Devotion podcast.
In Byrd’s case, most of her fiercest critics are OPC pastors and
elders. The denomination is relatively small, with about 300
congregations across the US and Canada. As a member, Byrd
pledges to submit to the governance of her congregation and
“heed its discipline, even in case you should be found
delinquent in doctrine or life.”
So far, her leaders have not subjected her to church discipline
over her books or blog posts, which she says are in line with
the confessions of her faith.
But that hasn’t stopped her critics. When members of the Genevan
Commons found Byrd’s accountability lacking, they wrote blog
posts with specifics about how to oppose what they described as
Byrd’s feminism. Byrd told CT that her detractors called ahead
to at least one of her speaking engagements to inform the
retreat center of concerns over Byrd’s teachings.
Group leaders have defended their remarks and the Genevan
Commons group.
“The idea that I’ve tried to create a place where we are
unaccountable is foolish,” wrote Shane Anderson on The Daily
Genevan in April. “In life many discussions are considered
appropriately private, and yet the Christian ought to know he
can be brought to account both by church discipline now and on
the day of judgment before Christ. I have no problem with that,
and they should stop pretending that I have some secret, hidden
agenda or actions.”
The anonymous website GCScreenshots featured not only the
Facebook group’s remarks against Byrd and other Reformed women,
but also a list of the hundreds of Facebook users who belonged
to the group, including the church affiliations of the pastors
and elders who were members.
Todd Pruitt, who has publicly defended Byrd, lamented that the
hundreds of users who never slandered Byrd appeared on the list
of members. Both he and fellow podcast co-host Carl Trueman
heard from dozens of men who belonged to the group but didn’t
realize it or never commented. One pastor told Pruitt his wife’s
employer was contacted over his membership in the group.
Steven Wedgeworth, a Presbyterian Church in America pastor who
appeared to make crude comments in a screenshot posted by the
site, alleging that the images were edited to omit context or to
wrongly indicate that some of his negative comments were about
Byrd.
Byrd fired back on her blog last week, disputing Wedgeworth for
minimizing the group’s slanderous comments.
“I’m tired of making a case that is blatantly obvious,” wrote
Byrd, referencing that multiple sources have surfaced
screenshots showing similar patterns of harmful language. “Why
do I have to say all this? Why am I the one defending my
reputation? When will there be a conversation about
qualifications for those in spiritual authority over Christ’s
sheep?”
Concerned OPC elders have been working to assemble evidence of
sinful speech from the group. Mark Garcia, an OPC minister and
president of the Greystone Theological Institute in Coraopolis,
Pennsylvania, said denominational leaders had contacted him
privately for advice on the best way for a presbytery to
discipline those who penned the comments in question.
When Garcia saw rude messages in the Genevan Commons group, he
says, he left the group and used his personal Facebook page to
repudiate the sinful things others said about Byrd. (Former
members say the group still exists, but it’s smaller and more
tightly moderated.).
Garcia believes it’s fair to critique Byrd’s work online, but a
discussion of “the ethics of her behavior, deceit, and the like”
does not “belong in those contexts, in social media, or anywhere
else except for the one context where the Lord has provided for
her accountability: her session,” he told CT.
Garcia is continuing to pray that God will “bring swift justice,
peace, and unity to his people in the ministry of his wise
Spirit.” He fears the process will be hampered by allegations of
slander both on the part of Byrd’s critics and her supporters.
But there’s good reason the church doesn’t match the pace of
so-called cancel culture, leaders say. Within the church, the
goal of discipline is restoration and growth in godliness, as
opposed to in the broader culture, where the goal is punitive
silencing and ostracizing.
“The wheels of Presbyterian justice move slowly. There’s wisdom
in that,” said Pruitt, who recently deleted his Twitter account
out of concern he was spending too much time in fruitless
debates. “Sometimes in our zeal to be vindicated we can cause
collateral damage that’s ungodly.”
The opportunities to speak out and offer influence also heap
additional responsibility on Christian leaders. Just look at the
warning of “stricter judgment” in James 3:1, followed by the
instructions around taming the tongue, said Darling.
“When you speak online, people are watching. We have to weigh
our words,” he said. “We forget that bearing false witness
online is an actual sin.”
[/quote]
The problem is that they do not deliver the words of
GOD...instead they use their own words.
Blade
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page