Jump to content
IGNORED

IFB: I could wear pants, but Decision Theology was the deal-breaker


Khendra

Recommended Posts

Thanks to schmucks like John Macarthur and extra schmucky John Piper, we are seeing a revival of this toxic "Reformed" theology. It has infiltrated the SBC. It's one of the two issues expected to split the convention down the middle. The other being the treatment of women. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply
42 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Raised UU here so predestination is not even on my religious radar. I sort of understand what it is, or is supposed to be, but cannot understand why anyone would have it as a cornerstone of religion.

If it's all predestined, including heaven or hell, why bother?  Calvin was a fucking crank.

In Calvinism, we only exist as humans in order to glorify God. The only point to our existence is glorifying God. If we go to Heaven, we are living testimonies of his mercy; if we go to hell, we are living testimonies of his justice. Either way, God is glorified, and that is all that matters.

It's definitely not a kind and loving religion. I'm not sure why it attracts people. The idea of having more of the "truth" than other people appeals to some, but that can't be the whole reason. It has an intellectual appeal, perhaps ??? The appeal of esoteric knowledge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lisafer said:

It's definitely not a kind and loving religion. I'm not sure why it attracts people.

I've never understood it either.  I wrote Calvinism and predestination off at the ripe old age of five after I made my mother explain a Sunday sermon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lisafer said:

This thread took a troubling turn yesterday, and I backed way off, but I see that we are safely on the topic of predestination again, so here I am. :) I grew up Calvinist, and oh boy, do Calvinists love predestination!

@zeebaneighba what we were taught re: predestination was that, yes, God had chosen people to be saved (the elect). The non-elect, those whom God had not chosen, would go to hell.

It sounds cruel (and it really is cruel) but the way Calvinism forces predestination to mesh with the concept of a "loving God" is by saying that if you go to hell, it is your own fault. And it's your fault because you are sinful, both because of Adam's sin (imputed guilt) and because of your own sin nature that causes you to reject God. 

In other words, God would totally save you if you repented and believed in him, but your sinfulness (which is your fault) makes it impossible for you to have a saving faith in Christ.  You are "dead in sin." 

The way the elect are saved is by God, via the Holy Spirit, changing your sinful nature so that you are able to have faith. But he doesn't do this for everyone: only the elect, whom he has predestined (chosen from eternity). Vice-versa, he has not chosen others to be saved, so they will certainly go to hell.

Goodness, this is like a sloppy five-minute version of predestination. Please ask questions and I'll try to clarify. This is what I was taught growing up, and now, writing it out, it sounds horrifyingly cruel. I left Calvinism before I left Christianity, because it made God seem like such an ass. 

The mental gymnastics it takes to believe that are mind boggling to me.  You could be saved if you repented (because god is so kind and loving), but god has decided you are too sinful to be saved, so you are SOL.  It just makes no sense.  Why would a god who professes to love humans DO that?  If you had three children and you could afford to give all of them the best life, would you arbitrarily decide that one child -- through no fault of his own -- didn't deserve decent food, clean and safe living conditions, and an adequate education and condemn him to live in the direst poverty while your favored children were well taken care of?

And I'm sorry, original sin is a crock.  All humans are born innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m so sorry to see the unpleasantness here. I haven’t read the posts closely but I see that Khendra started to explain theology and some of us pounced on theology and it devolved from there. 

@Khendra, I’m a born-&-bred Lutheran (LCMS) & appreciate your initial post so much!  It’s a great start at a  look inside an IFB congregation and I was pleased that you recognized the Decision Theology and rejected it.

Try not to let the troubles in this topic discourage you from participating in FJ. Many of us have our hot-button reactions to a variety of topics. Just the letters INFP, etc., or NIEDN and I literally feel my teeth grind & my bp start to rise. 

Your explanations of certain terms & ideas were well done and I think you had very sincere and innocent (non-proselytizing) motives in attempting to describe. I’m sorry things took a rough turn for you, but please stay around and put in your oar when you have something to say. 

Oh! I’m also very admiring of you for posting here as yourself. The people who have been extremist-adjacent and have had the courage to post their IDs (C. Jeub, for one) have contributed much to the discussions and I think you will, too! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

I’m so sorry to see the unpleasantness here. I haven’t read the posts closely but I see that Khendra started to explain theology and some of us pounced on theology and it devolved from there. 

That's...that's your interpretation of what happened? :shock:

I would recommend you read the four pages of posts a bit more closely ( you know, before posting a review of what happened?). I don't think it's anything to do with "troubles in this topic," and the hot button reactions were hardly on FJ's side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

That's...that's your interpretation of what happened? :shock:

I would recommend you read the four pages of posts a bit more closely ( you know, before posting a review of what happened?). I don't think it's anything to do with "troubles in this topic," and the hot button reactions were hardly on FJ's side. 

Thanks, I figured maybe mamajunebug hadn't read the comments where it got really exciting. I was taken aback by the hostility that came from the OP. As @feministxtiansaid, autism is no excuse to be an asshole!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2018 at 12:16 AM, Beermeet said:

I would never shy away from my friends like they have me. 

If this is too nosy/personal feel free to ignore me.  IIRC, your son was dx with FA.  I don't understand what that dx would do to cause friends to abandon you.  It's not like it's contagious or anything.

I can't imagine "shying away" from a friend when their child has a bad dx and certainly not when there is no danger of me/my family "catching" it.

I'm sorry this happened to you :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zeebaneighba oh, I could have won the Olympics in mental gymnastics growing up! 

But see, Calvinism and original sin are intertwined. If you believe (as we did) that you are completely sinful from birth, then you must have an all-powerful God to regenerate your heart so you can have saving faith. And if God chooses not to do so, it's your fault, because you are sinning against him and totally deserve Hell. Adam's sin (the forbidden fruit) was also "imputed" to all people, because he was acting on behalf of the human race. If you dared to question the fairness of that, you were told that given the opportunity, you would have made the same choice as Adam.

Yes, my parents looked at us as being sinners from birth. It's not a good way to look at children. I remember with my second child, I was attending a Unity service and one of the older parishioners and I were joking about him being a "troublemaker." He was about six months, I think. Then I smiled at my beautiful baby boy and said (for him) "No. I'm perfectly innocent." And the parishioner said, "That's right. Never forget that." :changing_color_heart:

@Coconut Flan, I wish I could have had your backbone at 5! I love it! Instead I was already developing what would turn into severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. The religion didn't help, for sure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@nausicaa and @Lisafer,

you both are very, very correct: I haven’t read the first four pages closely. I am just saddened by what I see:

Early attempts to describe theological ideas - not necessarily defend them - became personal and hurtful and angrifying on all sides.

I didn’t read very far in those theological descriptions — there was more detail than interested me.

I also didn’t read much of the arguing that followed.

So why did I post anything?

Honestly, as someone born & bred conservative Lutheran, I have a soft heart for others in that world. And as someone who finds it difficult to really connect with people IRL, I also feel for folks on the spectrum.

And because having seen Khendra comment over the years on Jordan’s blog, only to be ignored (and they seemed to be positive comments), I was delighted to see her come here and dish on the Niednagel machine and share other experiences.

I’m not here as much as I used to be, but those who “know” me will (I hope) confirm that I’m a peace-loving person. I try very hard to consider all sides and never to criticize  other FJ'ers. (Criticize ideas and evil extremists, oh yeah!!!!)

Anyway — That’s what I was attempting to do in my OP here, and in retrospect I could’ve done it a whole lot better. 

TL,DR: I meant well and wanted to post without taking sides because I feel the only other “side” is that of the extremists.  I have a feeling Khendra might add to the discussions here.

Final TL, DR: Your reactions to my OP here are very reasonable and yes, I have not read everything and no, I won’t.  Not being closed-minded, just don’t choose to read that much. I also didn’t intend to *write this much! Irony — I embody it!! :pensive:

Peace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

@nausicaa and @Lisafer,

you both are very, very correct: I haven’t read the first four pages closely. I am just saddened by what I see:

Early attempts to describe theological ideas - not necessarily defend them - became personal and hurtful and angrifying on all sides.

I respect your posts very much, Mamajunebug. But there were no personal or hurtful attacks on Khendra. She attacked posters in the thread. I backed way off because the word "suicidal" was used by her, and I'm not a complete asshole. I'd never want her to do anything to hurt herself. I waited until admin could catch up to this thread. But I do not think there is any blame on the part of the FJites who were seeking to interact with the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone starts a thread to discuss a fairly difficult and somewhat divisive theological belief, they shouldn't be shocked when tough questions are asked and people disagree with them. I knew absolutely nothing the OP except what I read in the two threads she had started recently. Her version of predestination is not something I have ever encountered and honestly makes less sense than the other kind(at least to me). I'm not sure how anyone was supposed to know that we had to not be snarky or ask questions lest she jump into accusing us of being mean to people on the spectrum and being bullies. 

I'm not sure what she expected from us or how we could have handled this in a different way. People in this thread did what FJ does, which is start asking questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curious said:

If this is too nosy/personal feel free to ignore me.  IIRC, your son was dx with FA.  I don't understand what that dx would do to cause friends to abandon you.  It's not like it's contagious or anything.

I can't imagine "shying away" from a friend when their child has a bad dx and certainly not when there is no danger of me/my family "catching" it.

I'm sorry this happened to you :(

That is correct, TY for remembering.   I don't understand it either.  It's heavy and visual and I think they just don't want that in their lives.  Idk.  But, thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, all the theology stuff is way above my pay grade, but here's what I "got" as a (highly paraphrased) summary of the general path this thread took (and others please correct me if I've read this wrong):

Khendra: hey, this is my experience in fundamentalism

Others: thanks for sharing, here are my thoughts, I particularly have difficulty with this one theology issue here. *some good discussion ensues*

Khendra: try thinking of it like how trans people aren't real because you can't just think you're a woman if you were born with a penis.

Others: OK, wait, that's not cool. That description is really transphobic and maybe you need to take a look at that. *some down vote on the transphobic post*

Khendra: OMG all you neurotypical atheists are attacking the stupid autistic girl! That's why autistic people kill themselves!

Others: No, we're not all atheist, or neurotypical, and we're not attacking, you just said something we strongly disagree with and that is hurtful to people.

Khendra: *silent flounce*

Others: *shrug* So, theology...

I also would like to see Khendra stick around, I think she could be a valuable voice to hear. However, I feel in this particular thread she was very quick to pull the "autism card" rather than actually look at what she said that was problematic, and she took (relatively gentle, IMO, considering what she said) pushback against her offensive statement as a personal attack. I think she could learn a lot here and we could learn a lot from her, but only if she's willing to take some criticism and understand that people will disagree with her sometimes, and that doesn't mean they're attacking HER personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lisafer said:

If you believe (as we did) that you are completely sinful from birth, then you must have an all-powerful God to regenerate your heart so you can have saving faith. And if God chooses not to do so, it's your fault,

What I was taught was that we were all born sinful, but everyone was born with the chance to choose God. God chose all of us, we just had to choose him back. He was giving everyone the gift of salvation, but some people went to hell because they rejected that gift. 

So everyone was chosen, but some rejected on their own will, but God chose them and wanted them. How this squares away with God knowing everything, was explained by God knowing all the potential paths that people's lives could take, including the paths that led to heaven or hell. It is all too confusing and makes no sense if one thinks about it too much. Thinking was not encouraged. :laughing-jumpingpurple:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

What I was taught was that we were all born sinful, but everyone was born with the chance to choose God. God chose all of us, we just had to choose him back. He was giving everyone the gift of salvation, but some people went to hell because they rejected that gift. 

So everyone was chosen, but some rejected on their own will, but God chose them and wanted them. How this squares away with God knowing everything, was explained by God knowing all the potential paths that people's lives could take, including the paths that led to heaven or hell. It is all too confusing and makes no sense if one thinks about it too much. Thinking was not encouraged. :laughing-jumpingpurple:

Thanks for your post! We were taught that people did not have the ability of themselves to choose God. He had to change their hearts first. And he does not choose to change everybody's heart. 

Sorry it's a short reply, I hate typing on my phone lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lisafer said:

It's definitely not a kind and loving religion. I'm not sure why it attracts people. The idea of having more of the "truth" than other people appeals to some, but that can't be the whole reason.

Why it arose, I don't know, But why people still believe it? It's because it means they are special and chosen, unlike the rabble. They must of course be part of the Elect. It's why even fundies who are explicitly NOT Calvinist sometimes break out talking points that sound oddly Calvinist. They just love, love, love the idea of being special. (For example, PP's sermon about how God could have sent an IFB believer to bring Prince to the light, but Prince was just too weird and so he only got a Jehovah's Witness, which means he wasn't saved and went to hell).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Terrie said:

Why it arose, I don't know, But why people still believe it? It's because it means they are special and chosen, unlike the rabble. They must of course be part of the Elect. It's why even fundies who are explicitly NOT Calvinist sometimes break out talking points that sound oddly Calvinist. They just love, love, love the idea of being special. (For example, PP's sermon about how God could have sent an IFB believer to bring Prince to the light, but Prince was just too weird and so he only got a Jehovah's Witness, which means he wasn't saved and went to hell).

That would certainly explain the Calvinist arrogance! It's a conundrum: how Calvinists, who believe they did NOTHING to merit or obtain salvation, are simultaneously so arrogant. I guess thinking you're special just warps your mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

Early attempts to describe theological ideas - not necessarily defend them - became personal and hurtful and angrifying on all sides.

I didn’t read very far in those theological descriptions — there was more detail than interested me.

I also didn’t read much of the arguing that followed.

So why did I post anything?

Honestly, as someone born & bred conservative Lutheran, I have a soft heart for others in that world. And as someone who finds it difficult to really connect with people IRL, I also feel for folks on the spectrum.

Sorry, my friend, but no, and you know I love you.

It was not the theology that was pounced on.   And it is unfair to your fellow FJers to judge while refusing to go back and read the thread properly.  I find that very disappointing in you.  I also think it is unfair to assume that others do not "feel for people on the spectrum."  In this case, no-one knew @Khendra was autistic until she self-identified late in the game.  However, that does not give her a total pass for her behavior.

To save you time this is the post by Khendra that made the whole thread take a negative turn.  It was, frankly, inflammatory.

On 7/8/2018 at 2:53 PM, Khendra said:

<snip> But do you feminists and non-theists not apply the same kind of gray Lutheran reasoning you are decrying here, to gender?  :) Except in rare cases of intersex, individuals are either born male, or they're born female.  You can't become male or female by merely thinking you are the opposite gender.  If salvation cannot be monergistic and damnation synergistic, then neither can someone be partly male or partly female by virtue of merely thinking so, when their genitalia says otherwise.

If neither you nor Khendra understand why I wondered whether we were being visited by a cross between Ken Alexander and Derick Dillard, I'll be happy to explain why that post was so offensive.

She was actually treated quite gently, even after that post, and some people tried to explain why her analogy was very badly chosen but she chose to melt down.

That said, I also hope she returns for more discussion.  She probably has much of value to contribute here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

became personal and hurtful and angrifying on all sides.

I just want to state I was not angry and made no attempt to hurt anyone in my discussion about the Lutheran version of predestination that I had never heard of and find confusing. And Khendra didn't actually express any anger until people told her her comments toward women, atheists and transgender people were offensive and attempted to explain why. From my rereading the thread to see if I accidentally was too harsh, the theological discuss didn't seem to anger her as much as being informed that the statements she made about those groups of people were misguided and offensive. She said some really awful stuff MJB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Terrie said:

@MamaJunebugSince you've chosen not read, let me simply state the strong reaction was not to theology, but to transphobic remakes by @Khendra

Okay, I appreciate knowing that. Thank you. 

4 hours ago, Lisafer said:

I respect your posts very much, Mamajunebug. But there were no personal or hurtful attacks on Khendra. She attacked posters in the thread. I backed way off because the word "suicidal" was used by her, and I'm not a complete asshole. I'd never want her to do anything to hurt herself. I waited until admin could catch up to this thread. But I do not think there is any blame on the part of the FJites who were seeking to interact with the OP.

Thank you, I respect yours, too. I had not realized these things were said. I’m backing away, too.  

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

Sorry, my friend, but no, and you know I love you.

It was not the theology that was pounced on.   And it is unfair to your fellow FJers to judge while refusing to go back and read the thread properly.  I find that very disappointing in you.  I also think it is unfair to assume that others do not "feel for people on the spectrum."  In this case, no-one knew @Khendra was autistic until she self-identified late in the game.  However, that does not give her a total pass for her behavior.

To save you time this is the post by Khendra that made the whole thread take a negative turn.  It was, frankly, inflammatory.

If neither you nor Khendra understand why I wondered whether we were being visited by a cross between Ken Alexander and Derick Dillard, I'll be happy to explain why that post was so offensive.

She was actually treated quite gently, even after that post, and some people tried to explain why her analogy was very badly chosen but she chose to melt down.

That said, I also hope she returns for more discussion.  She probably has much of value to contribute here.

Thanks, my friend, love ya too.  And thanks for the synopsis. 

Min future, if something is too far above my pay grade (interest) (tm Alisamer!), I won’t comment. Only prudent & fair 

38 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I just want to state I was not angry and made no attempt to hurt anyone in my discussion about the Lutheran version of predestination that I had never heard of and find confusing. And Khendra didn't actually express any anger until people told her her comments toward women, atheists and transgender people were offensive and attempted to explain why. From my rereading the thread to see if I accidentally was too harsh, the theological discuss didn't seem to anger her as much as being informed that the statements she made about those groups of people were misguided and offensive. She said some really awful stuff MJB. 

Hi @formergothardite, thank you, humbly. I will say I did not agree with what I read of Khendra’s explanation of predestination. This is how Bug Daddy JB explained it to me: God wants us all to be saved, thus we are all meant For Heaven. If we decide against God, God doesn’t force us to believe. Pretty simple and way less screwed up than Calvin’s mess.

ETA thank you to @Alisander — very helpful summary. 

I’m taking a general break from this, now. 

And thankful for dialog and patience with me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@formergothardite Yes! That's my beef. 

I was raised Baptist and we believe God gave us free will. We also believe that you are saved by the grace of God and not by works. And while Calvinism is harsh AF, it actually kind of makes sense. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then how do humans have real free will?  If he created time and space like this and know what's going to happen, then has ultimate control over what happens. 

That's what I don't get. And I don't feel comfortable talking about this in real life because I know the answer is "trust the Lord and lean not on your own understanding" in addition to questioning my beliefs and trying to revitalize my faith. 

 

As for Khendra, she really did react quite badly to legitimate questions. I personally tried to explain (gently) why the trans comments were offensive while also taking the time to understand her theology.   I found all of us to be quite gentle on her until she called us bullies and accused us of gas lighting and hating people on the spectrum. And even then, we didn't attack her. I hope she cools down and comes back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Free Jinger standards, the reproof she got for the transphobic comments were the equivalent of a satin pillow with someone fanning her and feeding her peeled grapes. There was no need for flying off the handle.

That said, I wish she would come back and continue the theology discussion. That was interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.