Josh:

As a person of your reading and experience, could you provide a short list of

1) bad Calvinists (starting with Frame?)
2) bad Lutherans

In particular, I mean the ones who tend to get uncharitable toward the other group.

I’m asking because I value your insight and if I read these guys, I want to read them more critically.

Got this from www.cvbbs.com. I want to promote this great business as much as I can. I appreciate DR, but Fred and family at Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service have the best prices and service anywhere, and have for years. They know how to treat you, and will answer your mail at info@cvbbs.com before you order. The extra 10% off is even better.

Greetings from Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service!

For those of you that will want to have gifts sent to loved ones in the coming weeks you will also find we have made gift wrapping available as an added convenience. As we enter this very active time of year, please remember to allow plenty of time for your order to arrive. This is a busy time not only for us here at CVBBS but also for our suppliers and shipping companies. A little extra time will help to avoid a last minute disappointment. Amidst our preparations for the coming season let us not lose sight of what we are remembering and for what we are grateful.

Aha, Josh has hit upon the key to civil theological debate. Beer in hand, we can all be friends. They should try it at the next Southern Baptist Convention. Bet they’d come away deciding that the London Baptist Confession was a good idea after all and ease up on the whole missionary thing.

When you approach the level of dogmatics and intraconfessional theological writing, that’s where the real sparks start to fly. For instance, John Frame (professor of systematic theology at RTS) wrote an article called “Law and Gospel” that could basically be summarized “Lutherans are crass idiots who write crappy confessions and wouldn’t know a passage of Scripture if it punched them in the face.” A Calvinist who’s really steeped in his Turretin and Berkhof knows how to make a Lutheran’s blood boil in about two sentences. To be fair, it’s been an entirely reciprocal relationship. If you don’t have a beer in hand while you read Pieper or Walther, you’ll come away convinced that all non-Lutheran Christians simply run around in circles all day while setting their own pants on fire and singing “Row Your Boat” backward (you know you do).

FWIW, the Calvinists I write against with the most vehemence on my own blog are the ones that regard Mike Horton and Kim Riddlebarger as “too Lutheran” and essentially traitors to the Reformed faith (apparently, they don’t put enough emphasis on the Law and “take justification out of its covenantal context”). Personally, I really like Dr Horton. He’s a nice guy, a good writer, and a good theologian. Most of the Lutherans I know who have heard/read him are really quite fond of him. That really, really bothers certain Calvinists.

Oh, and I’m twenty-TWO. I’m still young enough that I don’t round to the nearest decade.

Normally when the BHT is hopping with a major debate, I am right in the middle of it, and if I’m not, I’m thinking about what I will say when I get back to the keyboard.

Not today. I’m glad I’ve not been in this discussion. Don’t get me wrong. It’s been a great discussion, and carried on very cordially. (BTW- the Dead Horse was a discussion of Calvinism and Arminianism, and can be brought back if things get nasty. But I don’t see that.)

One thing that has me on the sidelines here is that I have never met anyone as theologically razor sharp as Josh. The fact that he is 20 years old makes it completly intimidating to me. I sit here with my library behind me, my degrees on the wall, 31 years preaching….and I don’t want to get into it with this dude. It appears he knows a lot more than I do, is supremely confident, articulate, and that makes me feel …..sorta stupid, to be truthful. :-) You twenty-somethings. What can I say?

Having read a lot of Josh’s blog, I also don’t entirely know what to make of his attitude towards Calvinism. I’ve never been around Calvinists who critiqued Lutherans harshly. Maybe that is because I hang out in the wrong circles. (Founders, Piper, Ligonier) But I’ve never heard Lutherans kicked around by any Calvinist I’ve read, any Puritan I’ve read, any Reformed preacher I’ve listened to- and I’ve listened to a lot of the heavyweights. So I have to admit I don’t know entirely what is going in with this. I listen to the Reformed guys and the Lutheran guy kid each other on White Horse Inn, but it usually sounds like they have the Gospel in common, and the differences over sacraments, predestination, effectual calling, etc. have never gotten in the way of cordial fellowship in calling one another brothers in the Reformation. So I’m not sure if there is a fight here or not. Josh, maybe you have some history with Calvinists that is different than my own experience with Calvinists and Lutherans.

Now…on to another news item. Tom said…

Hmm, so then Calvinism would say that the Holocaust was God’s will? That the Twin Towers bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing and repressive, murderous regimes around the world are God’s will? Reasons enough for me not to be a Calvinist!

So God is glorified in the horrible tragedies of the world, because we sure wouldn’t want to say God is not omnipotent. It’s better to call God a murderer? With that kind of thinking, no wonder people don’t turn to God. Oh, wait a minute, it’s God’s will they don’t turn to Him, right? Universalism and process theology is looking better all the time.

Some comments. And I admit it’s none of my business.

1) It’s not particularly hard to raise emotional objections to the implications of any belief in God. If you’d like to save some ink, just type “Job.” He said it better than any of us.

2) I would just like to know if we are going to be looking at texts and what they mean, or coming to a conclusion that is emotionally and intellectually satisfying apart from texts? Because if we are looking for something that will settle well on the human mind and emotions, then by all means, lead on! Just announce in advance that no texts of scripture to the contrary will be disturbing the trip. If we DO look at texts, I promise they are going to unsettle the mind and the emotions. (Examples can easily be provided.)

3) When I was a non-Calvinist, a friend gave me A.W. Pink’s Sovereignty of God. Everything you are disliking about Calvinism, all the objections, all the evidence that God is a monster, a sadist, a sickie…it’s all there. I have never been so angry reading a book. It made me furious. Just one problem: I couldn’t escape the conclusion that no matter how you but it together, at the end of the day, God must be sovereign or He is not God. And scripture leaves me no other choice.

4) In the past on the BHT, I have shown a proneness to get upset when someone caricatured Calvinism with extreme, emotion packed examples that no one had suggested. I’m going to try and not travel that road, but I will say plainly that I don’t like it. Making the observation is fair play. But let’s take it easy on conclusions like “That’s why people don’t turn to God.”

Colossians 1:22-23 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard…

Matthew 24:13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Luke 8:13 And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away. 14 And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.

Luke 22:32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

John 8:31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples…

Acts 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

Romans 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Hebrews 3:14 For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.

1 Corinthians 9:27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

I’m allergic to horses…

...besides, I’ve never noticed any Calvinism/Lutheranism debates over the last 2 years I’ve been reading. Basically, I just wanted to shell-shock you out of this 19th-century “There are only two systems of Christian thought: Calvinism and Arminianism” mode, because it just ain’t true. I can think of at least seven off the top of my head (Lutheranism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Calvinism, Arminianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism), no two of which are the same, yet you can pick any two and find some major points of intersection between them. Further, you can take any one and guarantee that at least four of the remaining six have made no genuine attempt to understad the other’s doctrine, but chose instead to ether villify it with rhetoric or lump it into one of the one or two it possibly understands.

“I’m still very worried about Afghanistan … The Taliban and al-Qaida are clearly making a comeback,” [Hillarious] Clinton said. “I’m very honored that we’ll be spending Thanksgiving with our 10th Mountain Division troops.”

And I’m sure our troops will be equally honored (EXTREME JN). There’s nothing that says military support quite like “Clinton.”

I think dead horses should be resurrected now and then for the benefit of newcomers. After all, who knows when it is that some fresh point of view may blow in from the street.

Eric, I think that was Bill who brought up theonomy. Do I still get the presents?

Gotta love it.

Okay, let me rephrase:

Calvinists believe that if someone doesn’t persevere in the faith, he won’t go to heaven. The contrapositive of a statement is true, and the contrapositive of this statement is “Calvinists believe that someone must persevere in the faith if he is to go to heaven.” It’s not a statement of causality, but of fact—the entire language of the Fifth Canon of Dort presupposes that those who go to heaven persevere in faith. I was trying to point out that if you slice your philosophy and definitions right, you can call this perseverance a “co-operation,” since Calvinists (at least the popular writers) do believe that the Christian perseveres willingly because of the conversion of his will by grace. If you delve into historical theology, you’ll find that co-operation, synergism, free-will, grace, and original sin have hardly had static definitions for the last 2000 years. Of those words, only “grace” is used in the Bible and should arguably have a definition independent of the theological tradition using it. The only people who aren’t synergists under any definitions of the terms used by any historic Christian theology are hyper-Calvinists; likewise, the only people who could not possibly be called monergists by any definition are certain groups of charismatics, Bill Gothard’s followers, the Boston Church of Christ, and other fringe groups (since Arminians believe that free-will is only able to operate because of grace).

That’s why you have to be careful in your terms.

(Smarmy announcer’s voice): Congratulations, Matthew, you brought up theonomy!!! That means that you will get a special visit from Thorvald the Thanksgiving Theonomist and his trusty sidekick, Dervy the Deuteronomy Demagogue!!! (Is there doody on-a you? There’s no doody-on-a-me!)

That’s right, Matthew; on Thanksgiving eve, when all the children of the world are snug in their beds, dreaming of their neighbors’ oxen in a ditch, YOU will hear the thud thud thud of Thorvald and Dervy’s trusty winged donkey, DL, on your roof!

AND for playing our game today, you get the added privelege of receiving a limited edition of a Charlton Heston photo from The Ten Commandments, autographed by Judge Roy Bean, er, Moore, himself!!

Congratulations!!

I see my slow descent into heresy isn’t nearly as interesting as the Calvin vs. Luther deathmatch. Oh, well! (JN)

If I may make a rather trivial observation, but there is no huge monolithic ontological entity called “the tenets of Calvinism” that floats around in metaspace. This applies to all theological systems.

So, it seems that whenever J says “Calvinism is X,” P could easily (within reason) argue that “Calvinism is not X.”

Scott provides the perfect example: Josh says that Calvinists believe one must perservere in order to reach heaven; Scott denies that this is the case (and I agree entirely with him). If any progress is to be made on this issue, one must lay out clearly and explictly the various points in question.

And I think the horse needs killing…

Just a gentle reminder.

Thanks!

Josh: Just a quick note: I don’t think that Calvinists believe that Perseverance is required for Salvation. I, for one, believe that perseverance is an action of the Grace of God that causes the elect to stay with the faith. It’s more of a picture of God’s sovereignty than of man’s actions.

On another note, I thought this horse was dragged out to a quiet spot in the pasture a year or so ago (hence my silence on the issue up until now)... or was that something else?

Phil: The problem with your definition is that you’re using “salvation” and “conversion” interchangeably. That’s a rather modern development in the grand scheme of things. Roman Catholicism, for example, teaches that conversion is entirely a work of grace, but that man must cooperate with this “initial grace” by the use of his free-will to finally make his way into heaven, which is called “salvation” (interesting note: you haven’t actually achieved salvation until you’re out of purgatory). In those categories, I don’t see how you could fail to define even Calvinism as synergistic, since every Calvinist I know of believes that one must persevere in faith in order to make it into heaven, unless perhaps they believe that Christians don’t actually willingly believe or do good works, which sounds absurd to me.

All: The mystery of election has more to it than an abstract decree, which is so far where this discussion has remained. In most Calvinist dogmatics, the ontological procession of events (NOT the temporal procession) is creation -> original sin -> election and reprobation -> incarnation and atonement -> faith & justification -> glorification.

In Lutheran dogmatics, the procession is creation -> original sin -> incarnation & atonement -> the appointment of the Church and the means of grace -> election, faith, and justification > glorification.

In other words, God actively chooses people in history through his grace in Jesus Christ operating through whatever means he has appointed. But all this is rooted in his eternal counsel, because God exists beyond all time and space. Election is interaction between the temporal and eternal, and as such, is bound to have an ineffable element to it-the only way to fully explain it is to temporalize God as the Dutch did in their debates over lapsarianism, or as open theists do. In Baptism, a very temporal sacrament, the true, eternal, before-all-worlds God chooses and marks out a people for himself; as such, it is a true, eternal, before-all-worlds marking. But if Baptism is, in some sense, a sacrament of election, there is no corresponding sacrament of reprobation (which is why election is totally asymmetric in both Catholic and Lutheran theology, why Calvinistic formulations of election tend to be symmetric, and why I said I can’t really discuss election without the sacraments). There is no means by which God marks out a people to be damned; these people are marked by their own unbelief and refusal of the appointed means of grace. They choose their end for themselves. Christians, by contrast, are chosen by God through his grace (which is in Christ and given through the appointed means) to believe.

BTW, I wouldn’t say that God’s grace is limited in power; otherwise, something would have to add power to it in order to make it saving.

Amanda: I’ve seen The Emperor’s New Groove a lot, too. Probably my favorite Disney flick at this point. Disney had gotten into a rut of making movies that they felt were sooooooooo important. The last movie they made that had any real feel of lightheartedness to it was Aladdin, which wouldn’t have survived without Robin Williams IMO.

Then comes TENG, which I missed in the theaters and rented on a whim. I knew the history of the movie and wasn’t expecting much… The original was five years in the making, originally starred Chris Farley, and was supposed to be an Aztec takeoff on “The Prince and the Pauper”, with Chris Farley (later David Spade after Chris Farley discovered that cocaine and alcohol aren’t as much fun as the “this is your brain on drugs” commercial indicated they would be) and… Owen Wilson?! as the pauper who gets switched with the Emperor. Yzma was originally supposed to be really depressed about being old and unattractive and planned to rope the sun and bring it down to restore her beauty. Story got switched around a few times. Michael Eisner hated the movie and tried to bury it by releasing it in December instead of Summer or Thanksgiving.

Lots of interesting history. Frankly, as many things as I don’t like about the Rat, they’ve made some good movies, especially recently.

The Little Mermaid – pretty good
Beauty and the Beast – masterpiece
Aladdin – great
The Lion King – masterpiece
The Hunchback of Notre Dame – good. Kill the gargoyles.
Hercules – good
Mulan – pretty good
Tarzan – great. Kill the Rosie O’Donnell ape. Skin it. Serve it as soup.
Emperor’s New Groove – masterpiece.
Lilo and Stitch – great.

It’s sad to see it go away like it is. Brother Bear and Home on the Range (formerly Sweating Bullets) look to be the last 2D animated theatrical features from Disney. Hopefully, HOTR will spur them back to greatness once again.

The thing which confounds me the most about the incarnation is that it represents God’s justice.

Did God damn a class of men to hell merely in order to display and magnify his Justice? Who knows. It’s a fact- some men are damned, and it’s a fact that Hell is not a province beyond God’s control. It’s also a fact that the yoke of Jesus is so light, who in their right mind would turn it down?

Apparently, lots of people. Thank God that he chose to give some people a right mind. He obviously is displaying something about his mercy there—
which is the point. His mercy IS justice. Every ounce of glorification and magnification which God could accomplish by displaying that His punishment is just, is somehow redirected into one man. And through that man, mankind does not have to endure the punishment.

Mankind will never understand this justice as mercy. The only way we can know it is to experience it and revel in it. But we will definitely never understand it, in this life.

Scott:

I’m well aware of who Izma was. I’ve seen the movie about 15 times (I’m NOT exaggerating). It just sounded like you weren’t sure. :)

Michael:

Ah yes, that site. I’ve been there quite a few times in the past. Good reference, though I think it’s a bit out of date.

Bill, I’m completely with you on Razormouth. I’ve got them bookmarked, but every time they start talking about the Judge Moore fiasco I quickly click away.

My sympathies to Jim! I pray that they give you as many drugs as you need and more.

I’ve stayed out of the Luther v. Calvin Celebrity Smackdown, mostly out of ignorance. Now that we’re winding down, I have to say that I’m attracted to the Lutheran position just for its honesty. The strict Calvinist and the strict Arminian both have some embarrassing bits of scripture to work around, but the Lutherans get to have their cake and eat it to by calling the interplay between God’s will and man’s will a mystery. It’s a cop-out, but at least it admits it.

On additional Calvinism notes, reading several of the articles at monergism.com lately, I’ve realized that my objections to the L and P in TULIP were mostly based on a misunderstanding of those doctrines. Thanks to Michael’s plug a while back, I find myself slipping into the nether-region of full-blown Calvinism. Damn you, Michael! (JN)

In the spirit of a theological cease-fire, let me offer some thoughts of a completely non-systematic nature.

Josh: Your comments have been most interesting. I have had very little insight into the heart of Lutheran theology, and I appreciate it. It is highly enjoyable to hear thoughtful critiques of “Calvinism” instead of the usual misdirected crusades against various forms of “hyper-Calvinism”. I’m still not convinced that we Calvinists aren’t really Calvinists, or that we aren’t really Reformed, of that Lutherans aren’t really Calvinists, or that Luther really wasn’t Augustinian, or that Augustine really wasn’t Augustinian, or that The Odyssey wasn’t really written by Homer, but by another man of that name. But thanks. Your passion and knowledge ought to earn you an honorable nickname here. How about Josh, the smarmy Lutheran firebrand? If you aren’t the best argument for us choosing Luther as our patron saint, I dunno what is.

Ouch. May God bless the physicians, the narcotics, the antibodies, and especially your spirit. And the whisky, if necessary. Hang in there Jim.

I disagree with much that is written over at Razormouth but I still read pretty faithfully and can appreciate a lot of the points of view I find there. That said, their theonomy induced blindness to this Judge Moore thing just boggles my mind. Moore had no right to bring that monument into the building and had no right to refuse to remove it. Breaking one of God’s commands to uphold another (and an imaginary one at that) just doesn’t cut it. This isn’t a difficult issue. Heck, it isn’t even a Christian issue.

Take a break from the theological sparring, you guys, and say a prayer for Jim. An encounter with a broken jar this morning earned him 8 stitches in his foot and he’s hurting pretty bad.

Josh: I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: The monergism/synergism question is at a different level than Calvinism/Lutheranism/Romanism/Arminianism. The differences in capitalization ought to be enough to make that clear. One could argue hierarchy or not — placing Calvinism and Lutheranism under the monergism umbrella and Romanism and Arminianism under the synergism umbrella — or one could simply consider it as a separate but related question.

I also think that some of your definitions are a bit limiting, especially those for the views you don’t hold. (Surprise!) I suspect that synergism is better-defined slightly more loosely, something like the following:
synergism: salvation is achieved through some combination of human will and divine grace.
monergism: salvation is achieved through divine grace alone.
The monergism definition I’ve updated to make the parallel clear, though I have no quibbles with your original definition either.

Similarly, it seems like we’re going around in circles, but you’re still missing the point I made when I first brought up the whole issue. Fortunately, I’m about to drive to Houston for the holidays, so you’ll have a week to answer me uncontested. In the meantime, however, I’ve modified your definitions slightly to make the differences clear; the replacements are italicized.
Calvinism: God’s grace is unmediated and therefore limited in scope and unlimited in power; however, man is to blame for his resistance.
Lutheranism: God’s grace is mediated and therefore unlimited in scope and limited in power; however, grace alone overcomes man’s resistance.

I added the entire last bit to Calvinism because otherwise there was no balance between the definitions. I don’t think I’ve got the best wording there to represent the Calvinist doctrine that “God is sovereign, man is responsible,” but I’ve tried.

I’ll leave Romanism and Arminianism for someone else. ;)

Really, as far as I’m concerned, the issue has ceased to interest me. Most of my best questions are going unanswered, and will likely continue to do so, and I think that there is a rule about that somewhere, so I’ll stop asking. :)

When confronted with a fork in the road, the Calvinist says that the only possible explanation for why grace overcomes man’s resistance in some cases but not others is that God chooses His elect. The Arminian takes the synergist route. The Lutheran says that Calvinism is not correct, but offers no real alternative, preferring to leave it a mystery. Fine. I’m satisfied that the Lutheran position is suitably monergistic, and if the Lutheran refuses to answer the question of why some men are saved and some are not beyond the clear statement that it is a work of grace alone, so be it. I like mystery in life. I’ll still adopt Calvinism as a better answer than any alternative I’ve heard so far, though.

Enjoy your turkey and stuffing, everybody! Travel safely, fellow travelers!

Maybe this will make more sense:

Monergism: Everything pertaining to salvation has its sole origin in grace.
Synergism: Man must co-operate with grace to make his way into heaven by using a power that he is innately born with, usually called free-will.
Calvinism: God’s grace is unmediated and therefore limited and irresistable.
Lutheranism: God’s grace is mediated and therefore universal and resistable; however, grace alone overcomes man’s resistance.
Catholicism: God’s grace is mediated and man must use his inborn power of free-will to make it effective for salvation after having received it (not all Catholics agree on what is necessary to receive it).
Arminianism: God’s grace is unmediated, universal, and is only received by a right exercise of man’s inborn power of free-will.

Of the four, the first three all admit to some kind of predestination to eternal life originating in God irrespective of foreseen merits, works, character, etc. Only Arminiansm denies that God elects anyone entirely of his own grace. Only Calvinism allows the possibility that God resolved to damn a class of men with no regard to what they themselves had done, prior to even creating the world (though not all Calvinists hold to this belief…inconsistently so, in my opinion, but that’s just my opinion).

Bill: I believe grace is that best described as the manner in which God deals with sinners in and through Jesus Christ. That’s the best “short definition” I can give. It certainly is unmerited favor, but that favor is incarnational in its fundamental character.

Phillip: “You seem to be arguing that any description of Christ that doesn’t involve His every action as a work of Grace makes Christ a little less than true God.” No, I am arguing that any description of grace that excludes Jesus Christ makes him less than true God. The reason stems from both the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity: If Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God and all the fullness of the deity is incarnate in him (as Paul says), then anything regarding the Son of God can be found in Christ. Further, if God is truly trinity in unity and unity in trinity, then nothing the other two persons do can exclude the one in any way. There is no grace that the Son has that is not incarnate in Jesus Christ (because that would divide the person), and there is no grace of God that is not grace of the Son as well (because that would make the Son less than God). Further, we as humans have no access to or true knowledge of God except in the man Jesus Christ (due to our sin, we are left only with the so-called “natural” knowledge of God, which reveals nothing of his heart toward us), so if we are going to look for and consider God’s grace, we have to do so in Jesus Christ, because to know the Son is to know the Father as well.

Judson: Luther wasn’t very Augustinian after about 1530 (“I believe in Jesus. I am baptized. I care nothing about the dispute concerning predestination,” plus his entire ecclesiology and sacramentology was more reminiscent of Ambrose or Justin Martyr than Augustine). Already in 1525, we are seeing some interesting shifts in thought in Bondage of the Will, where he launches into Augustinian exegesis of Romans 9, but a few chapters later is saying “But certainly he wishes to do this in all men, therefore the fault must lie in the will of the unconverted.” Also, if you read it through more medieval lenses and notice how he uses terms quite differently than modern theologians, you’ll come away with a quite different reading (free-will and predestination were explained in much different categories back then).

All: Reason might tell us that if God is truly omnipotent, then sin must be originally his idea. Scripture tells us otherwise, that in God there is no sin, and it entirely has its origin outside of him (which makes for some interesting ontology). In any case, when looking at the problem of evil, I think looking at isolated incidents (e.g. Twin Towers) and thinking of some kind of abstract deity is the wrong way to do it…really, how is a high and might deity who randomly ordains things any different than a deity who might appear in some other religion? So when we look at some individual manifestation of evil and say “Is God in control there?” our answer must be “of course,” but we, being Christians, must point directly to the Cross and how God dealt with evil decisively there, refusing to abdicate rule of his creation to the devil. I like Lewis’ saying, “Pain is God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” What causes pain? Sin does! What does God want us to hear? The Gospel! Bad things don’t happen so God can show off how powerful he is by making us suffer, they happen so that we will be unable to deny that the world is fallen and evil, so that we’ll be open to God’s answer to man’s sin.

Geeze, I don’t think I could get any smarmier.

Yikes, see what happens when I go so long between updates?

Josh: Your post stopped at two sentences when I responded to it, and now it has grown like Topsy! To say that God desires all men to be saved, but that he chooses to withhold salvation from some, is simply to say that he desires A and not A. The two statements are complete contradictions; you have God basically doing something contrary to his will. It’s funny, reading this I remember my original post on this whole topic and I think it applies. In it, IIRC, I mentioned that people in this debate (all debates more generally, but this is the issue at hand) are prone to ascribing negative points to the other side without realizing that those same negative points apply to their own position. So everybody believes in some form of Limited Atonement (a term I use instead of Particular Redemption on purpose), differing only in how Christ’s atonement is limited. And so on.

So coming full circle, Josh, you describe a clear Biblical fact that applies to all but the universalist, and then somehow consider it to be a logical impossibility and a problem only for the Calvinist. Consider this carefully and see if it does not similarly apply to your view, and that of the Arminian, for that matter:
1. God is not willing that any should perish. (Let’s call this ‘A’)
2. Not everyone goes to heaven (Let’s call this ‘Not-A’)

As I see it, only the universalist escapes this apparent contradiction, and he must still deal with Matthew 7:21 and many other passages. So the Lutheran and Calvinist and Arminian must together resolve this apparent contradiction.

Jesse: Consider the idea of a candidate who mentions how happy he is that another candidate has stopped beating his wife.

Also, my point wasn’t to judge the relative merits of different family situations – though I’ll go to the floor stating unequivocally that God’s plan for families (two parents, ‘n’ children) is the best one, regardless of how politically incorrect it is to hold such a view. I mentioned in my article that there were many subjective issues involved that I couldn’t account for without being accused of subjectively being too conservative or too liberal. A quick mental survey I ran did in fact skew the results even more against Disney in terms of movies from which I want my kids to pick up any values, so be grateful that I stuck with a “ridiculously reductionistic” standard!

Anyway, I came up with the list as an interesting mental exercise, not a value judgment. I should note that I own nearly all of the films on the list, and my family is getting three more Disney DVDs for Christmas (Sleeping Beauty, Finding Nemo and The Lion King). I like the movies, and some of the “most negative” ones are among my favorites. The point remains: Disney does not generally favor traditional two-parent families, intentionally or otherwise. The facts are there, folks.

Josh: You seem to be arguing that any description of Christ that doesn’t involve His every action as a work of Grace makes Christ a little less than true God. The Calvinist tends to argue that to suggest that God’s grace is not completely effectual makes God a little less than true God. Interesting conflict, no?

Matthew: I agree completely that we can easily become insular, unfairly characterizing our opponents from the outside. I tried to defend the Arminian view from the monergism guy, and look where it got me! Still, while I don’t hold to Arminianism any more, and while I can certainly quote example of certain people saying just what you say Arminians don’t say (“The most powerful force in the universe, more powerful than God, is your will. Isn’t that amazing?”), I do agree that we have to be careful to avoid mischaracterizing Arminians or anybody else. If for no other reasons, then how can we show somebody the error of their ways if they don’t recognize themself in our straw man?

Tom: The same problem, again. Unless you are stating that God is powerless to direct human action, it must be accepted that God chose for the holocaust to happen. Whether He actively directed the extermination or simply refused to act and only allowed it to happen seems almost pedantic when you consider the enormity of the concept. God, either through action or deliberate inaction, caused or allowed the holocaust when He certainly didn’t have to. This is a thorny problem common to Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism and the Quakers. It is difficult to understand, and I don’t understand it, but we must all accept that as a mystery of the God we serve. In this context, “accept” certainly doesn’t mean that we must be happy about it. Personally, I’m not, but God doesn’t answer to me, and so I wonder and struggle and accept, somehow, as we all must.

I keep coming back to that same argument. I should give it a name. The ‘Common Problem’ argument, perhaps?

Tom:

Calm down, man.

Either God will bring good out of evil, or he won’t. Christians give intellectual assent to the proposition that he WILL. However, we are human and live in the midst of evil, and he knows it. Ergo Jesus.

There is absolutely no contradiction in being a double-predestinarian with a complete and utter intellectual assent to Augustinian theodicy, and yet wrestle with God as Jacob did.

BTW, as an Augustinian, Luther was a double predestinarian.

In other words, there ARE mysteries, but it’s not always that we can’t know. It’s that we can’t deal with what we know. That’s why we were given someone that CAN deal with it.

From the wrestling standpoint, you might really enjoy this article from Dennis Prager. If we can argue with God, our children can argue with us.

I’m not trying to convert you. I’m simply trying to convince you that what I believe doesn’t functionally make me any different than you in my approach to evil.

It is important to remember that God’s sovereignty does not make us into fatalistic stoics. Yes, it was God’s will that the Twin Towers fall, but that does not mean that we are not to be angry, grieved and devestated over the act.

God will decide which sinners will be redeemed through the blood of Christ, but we are commanded to reach out to them all.

If my family is killed tomorrow by murderers, does the fact that it was pre-ordained by the Almighty prevent me from my grief, or the law’s duty to punish those responsible? Of course not.

God has told us how to live, and what we should do. The rest is in His hands. He is always fair and good because He says that He is. Tyrannical from a limited human viewpoint, perhaps, but not for Him. One of the fringe benefits of being God.

Tom: Fair enough. Actually, since Jim came out of the closet, heresy has become quite the fad here at the BHT. (JN)

Although I would disagree with your point of view, it was more my goal that you didn’t characterize what you were objecting to as “Calvinism” since I don’t see it as a Calvinism / Arminianism issue at all.

And now we can’t even use the Cavinism / Arminiansm dichotomy any longer since Lutheranism is evidently a third category. (SW) (actually, Catholocism would be a fourth category but since KenL is gone we can just assume that they are wrong about most everything except abortion)

Bill: I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t even try to.

I do have all the answers. I’m just not sure which ones are right. (JN)

Bill: I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t even try to. Yes, there are times in Scripture where God ends someone’s life. Most of the time, in hindsight, we can see a purpose for it. I guess that’s where Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (who’s always wrong) came up with a purpose for 9/11.

I’ve discovered something about myself. I’m not one of these people who are all religious and “Oh, it was God’s will, bless His name, and farther along we’ll know all about it” type person. I’m more like a Jacob, a character I used to despise, but, you know what, I’m him. I wrestle with God. I’m like David, who got pissed off at God because of the incident with Uzzah. If I were to post the exegetical paper I turned in on Genesis 22, some of you would be pretty shocked, because I accused God of being unfair in that situation. I just don’t sit there and stoically say that “O, brother, its was all God’s will.” And I think some things, even in the Bible, were attributed to God but they got God’s will wrong, like in the genocide that was committed by the Israelites to take the land. I know, I’m a heretic for saying some of this, but knowledge of God is always incomplete. Knowledge of God came to its fullness through Jesus the Christ, and still our understanding is incomplete. I think knowledge of God developed over time until the culmination in Jesus.

If God is love, these are not loving actions, and go against the very character of God.

Tom: Your argument proves too much, unless in fact you are an open theist or process theologian. Kurt has touched on this. God could have stopped the Sept. 11 tragedy, and all other tragedies. If God is love as you say (I’m not denying it) then He would have stopped these things. Why didn’t he? Only two reasons come to mind. Either He was unable to do so or unwilling to do so. It there a third option?

God is love, but that’s not all He is. I don’t like it any better than you do, but I have to be honest about what scripture teaches. You can claim prooftexting if you want. Have I taken those passages out of context and changed the meaning?

Tom: Were I to adopt the view that God were merely “standing by” and watching bad things happen instead of stopping them when the power was His, would that make Him any less responsible for things as they happen? Think of it like physics…imagine I have the power of a supercomputer in my head and I can calculate the path every pool ball on a given table when I break. I set the balls into motion and watch them go exactly where I knew that they would go. Sure, you could say that they went to their places on account of a chain of events, but ultimately who knew where they’d go? I would argue that God is like that, but infinitely more.

The Bible tells us that God hates sin. The Bible also tells us that He is sovereign and supreme. Why does he ordain that which He hates in His great plan? I can’t tell you, but I can see no other way to interpret it.

Jesus was crucified and rose again and now sits at the right hand of God. That’s not what I’m talking about here. I think it’s ludicrous to think that God was working through Tim McVeigh, or those deceived, hate-filled Muslims who crashed into the Twin Towers because they think that Allah will reward them. And proof-texting isolated verses doesn’t cut it. If God is love, these are not loving actions, and go against the very character of God.

Tom: It’s better to call God a murderer?

Are you saying that God never ends people’s life? What about the Red Sea episode? Annanias and Saphirra? Korah and his cronies? The purge of Canaan at the hands of Joshua? Uzzah?

The bible is full of unpleasant things that are attributed to the hand of God. What are we to do with them?

You might say the brutal execution of a sinless and innocent man could fall under the category of “tragedy”. But most of Christendom is more or less agreed that God was glorified by it.

Tom: It has nothing to do with Calvinism, simply a reading of the whole corpus of scripture. Amos 3:6 for one. Job, for another. I simply can’t imagine a nervous, frustrated, hand wringing God anxiously looking down upon his creation hoping that things turn out all right. If that is the case, as the great theologian Kenneth Copeland says, “God is the biggest failure in history”.

So God is glorified in the horrible tragedies of the world, because we sure wouldn’t want to say God is not omnipotent. It’s better to call God a murderer? With that kind of thinking, no wonder people don’t turn to God. Oh, wait a minute, it’s God’s will they don’t turn to Him, right? Universalism and process theology is looking better all the time.

Amanda: No. I was using the male-lineage method. Kuzco’s mother may have been alive, but in the film she was absent (and presumably wouldn’t have been crowned Emperor while a male heir existed). Since Kuzco is emperor, his father is dead (most likely). No, Izma was not his mother, just his really, really, really, really, really, really, really old advisor. Really.

Michael: I was hating Disney before the SBC, so there. Thpt!

Snopes has sooome good information, but they’re missing some others.

On “God” in the 3 faiths: I agree with JS.

Tom: Which robs God of more glory? That he has preordained a divine plan which includes, for reasons that we cannot understand, the existance of sin, or that he watches sadly from heaven as His will and His plans are defied by upstart humans?

I do not understand why God has done things the way that He has, but for us to say that anything that occurs is not preordained by Him, is to say that God is not omnipotent. You can’t even get around it by saying “God simply allowed it to happen, He didn’t cause it.” Bologna. This is the God that exists outside of time and set all things into play. His power is too all-encompassing to allow any other possibility.

Hmm, so then Calvinism would say that the Holocaust was God’s will? That the Twin Towers bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing and repressive, murderous regimes around the world are God’s will? Reasons enough for me not to be a Calvinist!

Josh:

It may well be that your categorizations are correct, and that Lutheranism is a more pious system because it refuses to delve into the reason why some people resist grace.

From the proximate standpoint, it IS a mystery why any human being would resist or deny God.

However, Calvinism appeals to me because it tries to look at the ultimate, rather than proximate, standpoint. It does not attempt to speak for God, but does grapple with the scriptural evidence of God’s cosmic sovereignty and cosmic goodness in a robust way.

In a vernacular sense, as Jim put it once, “God’s will is what happens. Now get out your bibles and start working.”

I believe it is a false characterization of historical Calvinism to say that it promulgates a pernicious doctrine of why people resist grace. I believe Calvinism simply takes What Is, and attempts to lay at God’s feet a trust that even the most confounding human stiff-neckedness will somehow display the utter goodness and righteousness of God, even if in a manner we won’t be able to grasp until the day of judgement.

Holee….

Looks like some folks in California need a visit from Mr. Aluminum Bat. I thought this was a joke at first, but apparently it checks out on Snopes. LA County has banned the usage of the term “Master/Slave”, even in reference to computer hardware configurations.

Get the scoop over at Snopes.

I’m still waiting for somebody to say “haha, just kidding.” We can only hope.

All things Disney at SNOPES.com.

Wednesday will be a half day of school and then we dismiss until Monday. Most of our international kids will be staying here so the dorms don’t close. Our daughter will be coming home and we’ve decided not to travel for Thanksgiving, but to have the holiday here. A small disappointment, as we usually go see our parents, but Denise’s mom is recovering from minor surgery and isn’t quite up to the big day. It won’t be too hard to be thankful being home with our kids. No one can be as blessed with wonderful wife and kids as I am. We love one another, and we all belong to Christ.

Clay has been at Regional All-State Choir for two days. One of four OBI kids participating. He has another day and then we will go to the concert tomorrow night. This is a big deal for him. Hundreds of kids. A director from EKU. Great Choral music. This is the next level, where a young person gets to see what all the work is for and what can be achieved. I can say in Clay’s case, it’s paying off. I’m seeing some growing interest in serious music that actually looks promising for the future.

The same God: This is a good question. Given that all three religions claim to accept the Tanakh (for these purposes I won’t call it the OT) as inspired, trivially speaking it is true that they all worship YHVH as revealed therein. QED.

The character of God revealed in the NT, Tanakh, and Koran are not the same, however. I think, and I hope that it’s not just my Christian bias showing, that the God revealed in the Tanakh and the NT are quite similar, though they have some important differences. This God is a perfectly holy and morally demanding God, but one who is infinitely forgiving and who loves his people despite their unfaithfulness. This is a God who can ask Abraham to offer his firstborn or who can say “Be ye perfect”, but who provides a sacrifice in both cases.

The God of Islam is different, from what I have read of the Koran. Allah seems less holy to me. He makes reasonable demands, then makes accomodation for human weakness. The best metaphor for him is a tough but fair master. YHVH makes impossible demands, then provides for them himself. The best metaphor for him is a patient and loving husband.

Islam and Christianity can both claim to authentically represent YHVH by invoking continued revelation, of course. But by comparison with the original, the Theos of the NT seems more like YHVH than Allah of the Koran.

I’m curious what you meant by ‘father at least’ in reference to Kuzco. There was no mention of either father nor mother, so I’m assuming that both were dead. Were you counting Izma as his mother?

I would say that the object of Christian, Jew, and Muslim worship is the same God.

I would go on to say that they are not worshipping the same God because the Jews and Muslims are not worshipping God at all. I believe that worship must in some way be acceptable to the One being worshipped, and viewed through the lens of Christianity it is clear that the Jew and Muslim have rejected the very God they claim to worship, so whatever it is that they are doing, it isn’t worship.

Matthew: I certainly agree that the Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine and that God as worshipped by Jews and Muslims is not the Trinitarian God of the NT. Jesus Christ is Lord, and Jesus was Lord at the time of th OT narratives.

But on the other hand- historically speaking- it appears to me that one could make a case from the OT narratives that all three religions worship the God of Abraham, as known at a particular time in history before Christian and Muslim revelation take the matter into areas where there is no compromise. We have a teacher who was raised among Muslims in N. Africa, and she is adamant on this: that the way to relate to Muslims is to say that The God of Abraham/Ishmael is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. When she says this, a number of our teachers get visibly angry. But- historically speaking, not bringing in all of revelation (which I think GWB has to do, as any of us have to do now)- it seems that all three would look at Genesis 22 for instance, and say that is our God Abraham is dealing with.

And I heartily agree that Calvinists frequently do all their reading about other theological positions from their own interpreters. That’s not always unreliable, but it is seldom the way to hear how Arminians present their own case. (Macarthur on Charismatics would be a glaring example.) And as for librarian freedom, I’m all for it. I don’t see any reason for librarians to charge those outrageous prices.

Michael, what about the OT narratives seen in light of the NT? I’m not being difficult, but when people tell me that Muslims and Christians worship the same God my response is that Islam certainly denies Christ and the Holy Spirit (they interpret the passage in John where Jesus promises a comforter as Muhammad) therefore they are not worshipping the same God. You can’t deny 2/3 of the Trinity and worship the same Triune Creator that we do.

Far be it from me to defend Arminian theologies, but some of y’all need to read something other than Calvinist characterizations of Arminian theology. I’m not saying that these characterizations are bad or wrong but at least extend them the courtesy of reading their writings. When I knew nothing of Calvinism I didn’t go out and read Arminian critiques of Calvinism, I read Sproul, Piper, Pink, etc. I think it is in poor taste to say that Arminians mock God with libertarian freedom when no one I know would even think of doing something like that.

Theology Website. Looks well done and interesting, despite the bland name.

Don’t Forget:

BHT CHRISTMAS!!!

Josh,

I don’t mind spending time quibbling about words.

Jesus is not a synonym for grace.
Salvation is not a synonym for grace.
The Holy Spirit, regeneration, sanctification, etc, are not synonyms for grace, even though they all may have something to do with grace.

Although I would characterize myself as a Calvinist, this has nothing to do with Calvinism, it has to do with the meaning of words. Perhaps I should just ask you for a 5 word definition of grace. (use 10 if you need to.)

I usually stick with the reliable “unmerited favor” definition but if that doesn’t work, we can try something else.

As for your example of Jesus and the chicken metaphor, I’ll go back to my previous statement. Desire does not equal decree. God does not desire that anyone sin, but he has decreed that sin will occur (ie: the crucifixion). God allows people to resist Him. But if He decides to overcome that resistance, it will be overcome (I think you said that also). The bible says God accomplishes ALL his purposes. Our God is in the heavens, He does whatever He pleases. God cannot fail.

So, in the instance mentioned, where Christ tries to gather Israel to Himself, are you saying that God in Christ TRIED to do something but FAILED?

I would have to register my profound disagreement with anyone who insinuates that God CAN fail, or that He HAS failed at doing anything He purposes to do. That is a fundamentally Arminian notion, and makes man some proud idiot, shaking his “free will,” in God’s face saying “nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah.”

Of course, a rejoinder could be, “well, it’s a mystery what went on.” And it may very well be, but from the biblical data, we are given two mutually exclusively options: either God can fail in accomplishing salvation, or He cannot fail (the latter entails irresistable grace). Which is it?

Jews, Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God? I guess that depends on your idea of worship. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but it does not seem possible for those who do not know God to worship Him. Those that deny Christ, deny the true nature of God. It does no good to worship a partial truth.

If Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god, then can’t we say that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Spongites and Phelpians worship the same god as well?

Bill:

No, I wouldn’t characterize that as grace at all (although grace may be involved).

jaw hits floor

Actually, I’m not too surprised. That’s probably the main thing that separates Calvinism from Lutheranism…ever since at least the Puritans, grace has become more and more and more abstracted until it pretty much proceeds from the omnipotent hand of the Father alone. I believe Jesus Christ is the embodiment of God’s grace, and if we wish to understand, describe, explain, or define God’s grace, we need look no further than the mystery of the Incarnation, because every single thing pertaining to salvation (i.e. grace) is wrapped up in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Anything less seems to make him a little less than true God.

Christ mentions desiring to gather Israel as a hen gathers her chicks, and I think there are clear examples of him attempting to do so, and Israel not listening because of hard-heartedness. What do you make of that?

The Hastily Assembled 1 Page Lord of the Rings (Thanks Father Mackenzie)

A lot of my GWB supporting friends are spinning and spitting over this one: “I do say that freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every person. I also condition it by saying freedom is not America’s gift to the world. It’s much greater than that, of course. And I believe we worship the same god.”

Oh Lawd. Best of the Web Today comments:

Bush is right. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all monotheistic religions, united in the belief in a single God. (Muslims often call God by the Arab name Allah, but then so do Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews.) The three religions conceive of God differently, and Muslims and Jews do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. A Christian may well believe that Islam’s conception of God is wrong, but if you believe in only one God, it makes no logical sense to describe a fellow monotheist as worshipping a “different” God.

“The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite. The personalities of each god are evident in the cultures, civilizations and dispositions of the peoples that serve them. Muhammad’s central message was submission; Jesus’ central message was love. They seem to be very different personalities,” Haggard said.

Scott & Co.:The unofficial Anti-Disney Website makes it abundantly clear that Disney is a bully, greedy, plays hardball, isn’t really the Magic Kingdom and so on. I wouldn’t argue with that. But the premise that Disney really has a concerted, intentional interest in demeaning families and selling gay couples just sets off my Art Bell buzzers. I won’t make a “Rule 16” call on your various claims cause I’ve never sat through most of Disney’s awful fare and you know what you are talking about. I just feel the SBC war on Disney is foolishness. Liberals are forever declaring war on corporations that pollute and pillage. Here are conservatives declaring war on Disney because too many cartoons feature orphans?

Like I said, English literature is repleat with orphans and people raised by relatives. It’s part of the literary mindset of Western storytelling from serious drama to children’s books to cheap romance novels. I can’t see that Disney is much different, and if a few pro-gay Disneyites are sending their message undercover it doesn’t bug me. I’m teaching my kids to think.

Well, of course Clark wanted to subtly get at Bush. The point is that anyone should be able to see that the Post’s headline is a hilarious distortion of what Clark actually said. The laugh-fest doesn’t end there, as Clark isn’t even given the dignity of being called a candidate, but a “wannabe”, and most of the article is devoted to saying that Bush’s drinking past is somehow off-limits for discussion. This is ostensibly journalism, but it reads more like a parody of a GOP press release.

Michael: Well, Michael, it’s a little more than conspiracy.

I worked with a theater for several years, and let me tell you: if there was one studio we dreaded dealing with, it was The Rat. Disney’s penchant for control over the sales and marketing of their product got them in hot water with us (and our attorneys). They charged us far more for their films than any other studio, and required that every person pay full admission to see their usually claptrap fare. This meant that we couldn’t even hope to discount ticket prices for Disney movies out of fear of losing our shirts. And we were a discount theater. Disney required 90% of our Box Office take off the bat (remember that next time you wonder why popcorn and sodas at theaters cost so much). By contrast, Paramount (sigh…. blinks eyes enrapturedly…) charged us just over 50% for kids and seniors just over 60% standard. The average among all studios was 70%.

And don’t forget – Disney includes Disney, Buena Vista, Hollywood, Touchstone, and Miramax. Ouch.

To top it off, The Rat would send people to theaters playing their stuff to spy on them and make sure they were doing it right. One local theater almost got sued out of existence because the owner took it upon himself to pay for the admission of every child under the age of 4. Were they secretly trying to force gayness on our kids? Were they communicating evil messages through animated fare to youngsters? Probably. The SFX tag in the Lion King is a little iffy (most people thought it said “SEX” – I believe it was changed for the special edition), but there are genuine bad words and things hidden throughout many Disney kid flicks – falling blocks spell the word “Damn” in The Emperor’s New Grove, a topless woman in The Rescuers, and several naughty things in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Ken: Glad it’s over. Multiply that by about 20x a year and you have my ministry. I am convinced that one of the reasons I am here is as ballast to the lunacy that is evangelicalism loose in my chapel. Revivalists tend to say anything they want and care little if it makes any sort of sense. The power these guys feel in being able to do their thing and then fill up an altar is intoxicating. It’s proof that God approves of whatever weenie theology they were selling or manipulative method they were using.

The Disney thing reeks of conspiracy wackos. The SBC war on Disney was one more reason to get my kids out of an SBC church.

Anyone familiar with world literature and particularly British/European literature knows that lit has always been overly populated with protagonists who were orphans or raised by relatives. That had to do with things like…..death and war and disease. Not conspiracies at Disney.

Someone out there on the fringe needs to take a few steps back from the edge.

Remember everything I said about my fear of twenty-somethings? Hand me my medication.

JS: The tactic is called Damning with faint praise.”

If I may quote: Damning with Faint Praise.

“Classification: A deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premiss, in the Ad Hominem family.

Description: The argument “attacks” a position by complimenting or praising the opponent or the opponent’s argument. However, the praise is misdirected or unenthusiastic, suggesting that relevant, enthusiastic praise would be undeserved.”

Clark- that sneveling little opportunist- wants the words “Bush” and “alcoholic” in the same sentence so bad he’ll say anything to make it happen. Where did GWB ever say he was an alcoholic? Clark needs to quit fantasizing about being Hillary’s VP and come up with some reasons to take him more seriously than Kucinich and Sharpton.

I understand the problem here, though. The dwarves have become such a comic lot that talking about Bush’s “alcoholism” at least has the potential of attracting a stray reader here and there.

Josh: I stand corrected and withdraw my statement as worded, and will replace it with the following: “Luther never rejected the Catholic Church, just the abuses he saw that had taken hold of the church by way of a corrupt hierarchy.”

I stand by my statement that Luther had no desire to found a new church, but saw himself as a reformer of the Catholic church, and would not have left the church if not exited. Further, I do not believe the short list you provided made Luther a “bad catholic.” Peter Kreeft- a Protestant convert to the RCC- makes a convincing point that Luther was one of the better Catholics in history. I still believe we are subject to considerable revisionism to make Luther the great advocate of Protestant denominationalism. But we may disagree. I probably agree more with what you’ve written so far than anyone on the blog.

The illusionist “preached” the revival meeting in our church this weekend.

I will be sharing some interesting things that I “learned” from this preacher this weekend.

1. There will be people who go to Hell because of my sin.

2. Victorious Christian living is not the result of willpower, but the initial act of salvation is.

One more note:

The Emperor’s New Groove: Paca actually has 2 1/2 kids – his wife (ChiCha) is pregnant. Also, although it doesn’t appear so, Emperor Kuzco is actually approaching his 18th birthday (he needed to pick a bride – “Let’s take a look see. (1st) Hate your hair, (2nd) Not likely, (3rd, 4th and 5th) Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, (6th) and let me guess, you have a great personality.”). Technically, he’s a teenager whose parents (father at least) are gone.

And the loopy purple fish is actually a blue tang by the name of Dory.

And yes, Married With Children is more family friendly because Al Bundy rules. Thank you.

About Disney: I don’t think you can count Finding Nemo as a negative. Yes, the mother is killed at the beginning of the film, but the trauma from this event is the driving point behind the whole rest of the plot. Furthermore, the happy ending has the loopy purple fish (I forget her name) becoming Nemo’s de facto mother, thus restoring them to two-parent household status. Similarly, in Lilo & Stitch the plot revolves around the difficulties inherent in being raised without real parents. It’s hardly a glorification of single-parent families. Ditto for Lion King.

Actually, I think that this whol