Potentia Deo ad Destructionem

Evangelical?

I’m at a crossroads. Evangelicalism has continued to be a total failure, a failure in the sense that like many other movements all we see is redefinition of what was once a beacon of hope for American Christianity.

Today, if you’re evangelical you can be Rob Bell, or Albert Mohler. If you’re evangelical you can be Roman Catholic, or Protestant. Evangelicals can be both Calvinist and Arminian. Irrespective of traditions we can be pentecostal, baptist or lutheran.  Evangelicals are only republican although many voted for Obama. Evangelicals talk about ‘salvation’ without justification and ‘asking Jesus into your heart’. They walk the aisle, bark like dogs, or have big tent revivals. They are Pelagian or Calvinist. They don’t celebrate halloween, can’t dance, don’t smoke, or drink alcohol. They are aware of the evils of pop culture only to reinvent it ten years later themselves. They like to talk about how Britney Spears wears skimpy clothes, but don’t mind incorporating the aesthetic elements of her concerts in their worship. They seek social justice without justification, they want to feed the poor but are not fed by God. This leads me to ask; what exactly is an evangelical?

I attend an evangelical church, at least that’s how we identify ourselves. But lately, I’ve been wondering if I should even continue to call myself evangelical. I surely don’t identify with a transformational, theonomic-lite evangelical relation to society. I drink beer and use tobacco products. I’m not going to feed the poor without sharing the Gospel, but I want to make sure that the poor at my church are fed first. I don’t believe that the Trinity, and the deity of Christ are the only articles of faith that a Christian can hold to be called a Christian. I’m not a mystic, and I didn’t ask Jesus into my heart to be saved. I don’t believe prayers are magical and I believe God is sovereign.

Now, it would seem that I fit the profile of an evangelical, at least an evangelical from decades ago. Today, however; I don’t. It would seem its time to abandon the term.

Nick Don, and the Reformation

Nick Don is a great example of what happens when Protestants fail to remember the central tenet of the faith.

http://www.revelife.com/715608043/catholic-on-reformation-day/

But Protestants are far too often accepting or even celebratory of this state of things, seeing the Protestant church not as a protesting, reformation movement within the catholic church, but as an end in itself.  But to the degree that the Protestant church forgets who it is and is content to exist only in its own branches, it is sinning against the unity of the church Christ died for.  The church of all places must be unified, as it is intended to be the first fruits of a coming new creation in which all the walls the divide people have been destroyed (Eph 2:14).

Nick seems to have developed this Romantic idea that the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church are all ‘churches’It cuts both ways, Nick would have to chastise the Catholic church for dividing with the Protestants or did he forget the Council of Trent? In as much as Protestants sin for being Protestants, Catholics sin for refusing unity with Protestants a la Trent.

Also, Protestants don’t believe the Catholic Church is the ‘catholic’ church so that we’re not divided with Rome. Rome anathematized the Gospel, in doing so ceasing to be a church.

Furthermore, Catholics don’t believe Protestants are catholic. And who is Nick? An anabaptist? He’s heretical on both ends.

Hauerwas discussed the advantages of a catholic Catholic church.  For example, a catholic Catholic church gives the worshipers the comfort of knowing that wherever they travel, they will be worshiping the same God.  It is not necessarily so in the multitude of Protestant and Protestantish churches that not only have convergent beliefs in a number of matters, but also have no relationship with one another.  According to Hauerwas, “Catholics understand the church’s unity as grounded in a reality more determinative than our good feelings for one another.”  We might also add a reality more determinative than your or my unique theological formulations.

Hauerwas through Nick has exaggerated the issue, suppose we I entered a city where there was no Presbyterian Church but a faithful baptist church, would I then be forced to worship the baptist God? Hauerwas either is exagerrating or Nick is abusing what he said.
I do not necessarily want to see the Protestants close up shop and return to Papal authority.  Perhaps that makes me too Protestant for most Catholics.  But I also cannot see the Protestant church as solitary and satisfactory in itself.  No doubt many Protestants will disagree.  Standing as I do outside both organisms, I can summarize what I would like to see this way: I would like to see the Catholics become more Anabaptist, the Anabaptists become more Catholic, and the Protestants become more of both.

The only problem is that Catholics cannot ever be no less than Roman Catholic. The Roman Church is always and will always be the Roman Church, unless Nick would accept a liberal and fallible Catholic magisterium he cannot ever demand they become anything else, they are an immovable rock.  So, whatever Nick would like to see, he’d only be able to perhaps see a Protestant Church and an Anabaptist movement ruin itself into the hands of Mother church.

Today lets celebrate the Reformation, from Anabaptist mysticism and Roman idolatry.

New Atheists, New Calvinists…New Jews?

Emergent Jews 

 

You are God alone

There was a time, if  ’time’ it could be called, when God, in the unity of His nature (though subsisting equally in three Divine Persons), dwelt all alone. “In the beginning, God.” There was no heaven, where his glory is now particularly manifested. There was no earth to engage his attention. There were no angels to hymn his praises; no universe to be upheld by his power. There was nothing, no one, but God; and that, not for a day, a year, or an age, but “from everlasting.” During a past eternity, God was alone: self contained, self-sufficient, self-satisfied; in need of nothing.

-  The Attributes of God,p.10 AW Pink

All means all…

Arminians like to argue that ‘all’ means ‘all’ in the ‘all’ texts about Jesus dying for ‘all’ …so, lets apply all to other verses:

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

All means All

Therefore Jesus sinned.

Hispanic religion changing.

http://www.nhclc.org/about/news/july2009_4.html

An article about the changing face of Latino religion. Its not good that Pentecostals convert from Rome, because Pentecostals can still be Romeish. Consider the sacrifice of the Mass, the climax of the Roman liturgy with the Pentecostal ‘altar call’ the climax of the Pentecostal service. Both are experientially minded, the only difference is that Pentecostals have no rich history, or councils to keep them doctrinal.

Furthermore, this also increases ecumenism with Rome. Since Roman Catholics have noticed the growing stream of Hispanic Catholics to Pentecostalism – Roman Catholics have adopted a ‘charismatic’ service, this makes it easier for former Catholics to identify with Catholicism and be more welcoming of the blasphemous doctrines of Rome. What unifies the pentecostal movment and Rome? The doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This isn’t something to be celebrating, its just cause for more concern.

A response to arguments? Not sure what this is actually.

So Calvinists believe that God dictated who would be saved before that person was even born.

i) No. Its not only Calvinists who believe in election or that God ‘dictated’ we would be saved before we were born. Arminians teach the same thing, but the basis of election was completely different. Calvinists believe that election is on a basis known to God alone, Arminians believe God elects based on foreseen faith. Election is not exclusive to the Calvinist position, its exists on both sides.

ii) Unless this person is an open theist, they cannot simply say that God allows us to choose to be saved without assaulting the doctrine of God’s omniscience.

Therefore we have no free spiritual will….

Do we have two wills? A free will, and a free physical will?

meaning we do not choose to follow God, rather God predestines us to follow God and be saved. So your saying that it’s not because you have faith in God and follow His ways, God will be merciful on you and save you.

Perhaps you should be more clear, this statement seems to be teaching that we are saved by works? Do you believe in a doctrine of justification by works? If thats the case you have more problems than just your dogmatic Arminianism.

But rather you are saying that it is because God chose you, you will serve God and be saved.

Yup. This is correct and Biblical.

I studied up on the 5 points to Calvinism.

Keep studying.

The first point, total depravity/inability, says that man is totally sinful and is not capable of being “good.” Therefore any “good” act is motivated by something evil. If we are purely evil, then man cannot obey God’s command to repent. God says he will eternally punish those who do not repent.

Total depravity teaches that sin has affected all parts of man. This is consistent with the teaching that we are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ and that ‘the natural man cannot please God’ that ‘none seek God’ ‘all have turned away’, and that ‘the heart of men is wicked above all things’. Thus, total depravity teaches that we are sinful in all things which includes the will to obey God.

But if man is evil and therefore cannot repent, then God is not just.

i) Justice is not established by a general consensus of theologians in some Arminian ivory tower.

ii) God alone determines what is right, therefore God can determine what is just since justice is right.

iii) Its unjust to justify the wicked, so we should never cease to marvel at God’s acts in justifying sinners.

iv) Evil is punishable by death, therefore its just for God to damn all. None deserve a chance. This is why Calvinists teach a doctrine of election.

Moses even said that what he is commanding them to do is not too difficult or beyond their reach…he just commanded them to love God, to walk in his ways and his commands, decrees, and laws. But, if we are totally incapable of non-evil-motivated action, then there is a problem.

The problem is with your interpretation. You have even more problems than this. You’re teaching is not historical Protestantism (or Baptist doctrine) in any sense. In fact early Baptists were Calvinists. Secondly, you are also teaching an inspient pelagianism which the early chuch battled and anathemated (eternally damned). So what you’re trying to push, like a crack head pushes his drug, is in line with ancient heretics and not historical orthodoxy.

Limited Atonement is saying that God predestined the elect, therefore meaning that Jesus only paid for those few elect. I believe that the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9:15-18 is incorrect. They believe this is the proof of predestination. I believe these verses are saying that man cannot do anything by himself in order to get into Heaven.We need God’s grace and mercy, which only God can grant.

This contradicts what you said above, afterall do we not have the ‘ability’ to choose God? If we can choose, then we need no grace or mercy. We have the almighty, infallible will of man.

God gives mercy to those he gives mercy to, and according to Jesus’ teachings, God will grant mercy to those whose hearts are truly seeking God and who follow Jesus’ path in heart, mind, and action. And if man is totally incapable of doing good, then we cannot truly be remorseful or repentant. Also if man is totally incapable of doing good, then we cannot be faulted for our sins.

Wrong. Total depravity is not utter depravity. This is a perpetual misunderstanding by Arminians. Also, repentance comes by grace. We don’t repent of our will, but of regeneration. Although, in your pelagian, works righteous system I’m sure you can regenerate yourself, right?

So if God has already elected those who are going to heaven, then why should we evangelize, seek to be saved or follow God’s path? You would probably say, “Because God told us to.” But if God has already elected those who will be going to Heaven, then it doesn’t matter how much Christians witness or influence the world nothing will change who is elected or not.

The means by which God saves the elect is the proclamation of the Gospel, and the church. Thus God will save his people, through his Gospel in His Church. Thats why. Do  I have to remind you that the earliest evangelical missionaries were ALL Calvinists?

God may use evangelism to save the elect, but our conscience decision not to evangelize will not affect the elect.

If God’s means of saving the elect is the proclamation of the Gospel, then the elect will be saved by hearing the Gospel proclaimed. You’re drawing conclusions that do not follow.

Also, if God predestined everything, then there is no use in praying for friends or family. God has already predestined the events and no pleading to God will change his mind…it has already been predestined and cannot be changed.

If God predestined everything, then God predestined our prayers and his response. Furthermore, I didnt know God was a cosmic Ask! search engine. Prayer is primarily a form of worship, not a pizza delivery place.

So if God predestined everything, then God did create sin. He made man act a certain way knowing in advance what it would lead to.

If God didn’t predestine everything, he still created sin, he made man act in a way knowing in advance what that actions would do. Eitherway, God knew sin would exist.

If God predestined everything, then why eternally punish the non-elect… I mean it is not their fault they were predestined to be damned.

i) The non elect are not punished because God predestined them to damnation, but rather they are punished for sin. They are ordained to be damned, but punishment doesn’t exist simply because God ordained it.

Your saying God only allows the elect to be saved and therefore predestines everyone else to burn alive in Hell for eternity all because he wants them to….sounds like a loving God to me.

No. This sounds more like  a just God. A loving God sounds like the one who saves his elect from himself.