Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Khendra

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I don't understand how you can have monergism only apply to salvation and not to damnation. Unless there is some middle ground where you aren't damned. But that doesn't really exist in Protestant circles. So either you're predestined or not. 

Maybe Lutherans have this vague theology in order to separate them from Calvinists who are irksome to a lot of non-predestinal Christians groups. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Good discussion, and some fair points.  I can see the logical objections to the seeming paradox of monergistic salvation and synergistic damnation.  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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Khendra said:

Good discussion, and some fair points.  I can see the logical objections to the seeming paradox of monergistic salvation and synergistic damnation.  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.

Ok so gender and your theology don't work the same way. They are not equivalents and have completely different functions, histories and rules. 

There's a  very compelling academic and sociological argument for gender (and by gender I mean the assigning of attributes, identity, and roles  based on physical anatomy)  being socially constructed and not fully determined by biological sex.  You can see this by how different societies have constructed their genders and the different ways it functions depending on time, culture and place. So we do have a logical argument that doesn't contradict itself and isn't essentially vague. 

Edited to add: I do identify as a feminist, but I'm also a Christian. The two are not incompatible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jinder Roles said:

Maybe Lutherans have this vague theology in order to separate them from Calvinists who are irksome to a lot of non-predestinal Christians groups. 

This article explains the Lutheran single not double predestination theory quite well:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/10/calvinist-predestination-vs-lutheran-predestination/

2 minutes ago, Khendra said:

Good discussion, and some fair points.  I can see the logical objections to the seeming paradox of monergistic salvation and synergistic damnation.  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.

Woah, mama.  The transgender cat has been thrown among the feminist and non-theist pigeons now!  

Khendra, what is your purpose here?  Theological discussion or baiting feminists and non-theists?  An awful lot of people here identify as Christian, you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither my post, nor formergothardite's to me, are baiting.  I think we are both fairly trying to apply consistent logic across situations where people seem to like to pick and choose between black-and-white and gray thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Khendra said:

Neither my post, nor formergothardite's to me, are baiting.  I think we are both fairly trying to apply consistent logic across situations where people seem to like to pick and choose between black-and-white and gray thinking.

We weren't (or at least I wasn't) implying you were baiting. We are saying you were comparing apples to oranges. And yes consistent logic should be applied. But the thing about logic is that you also have to understand the context and content behind a certain phenomenon. In my previous post I was explaining the logic that sociologists use to explain gender formations. It's not grey, it's a rigorously and collaboratively developed theory. You were essentially providing a straw man argument. 

But after reading the article @Palimpsest provided. I am understanding the Lutheran predestination argument a bit better. The article claims that Calvinists take what is said in the Bible and come to a logical conclusion about double-predestination. While Lutherans take note of seemingly inharmonious verses on salvation and take it that God's full knowledge and understanding have not yet been revealed. Therefore people are not predestined to damnation because God clearly states a desire for all to be saved. And that Christians should focus on God's grace (especially through Christ) 

From the verses presented in the article, both the Lutheran and Calvinist versions of predestination are compelling interpretations of Scripture to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have such a hard time trying to understand this predestination idea.  I was raised a Christian (Episcopalian) and continue to believe.  I was taught we were given free will to make choices, and to be careful of the choices you make.  To try to live a Christ like life, meaning, be kind, give of yourself and your money, love you neighbor, etc.  That all can be saved through grace if you repent of your sins.  That as people with free will we all will flounder and sin, it is the realization of that sin and the repenting of it that allows us grace.    Can I quote scripture and recite the bible, no, not really.  But do I understand the concepts of love, tolerance, acceptance and being non judgemental?  Yes, I do. Can I wrap my head around the fact that it is not my job to judge, that is the job of someone far more knowing than me? Yep, that too.  Guess I am damned as I've got this Christianity thing all screwed up....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was asking a genuine question.  This thread and the Niednagel Brain Typing one also started by @Khendra are an interesting combination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Khendra said:

Good discussion, and some fair points.  I can see the logical objections to the seeming paradox of monergistic salvation and synergistic damnation.  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.

1. Gender and sex are different things. 

2. Gender is a spectrum, and most people exhibit traits from both ends. 

3. Intersex is much more common than you seem to realize. 

4. Why do you assume everyone here is a non-theist?

5. Why do you assume only non-theists would question monergism?

6. What does feminism have to do with this argument?

7. Why do you assume only feminists would disagree with monergism? 

8. God either makes a decision about something or He doesn't. Either God knows all choices we will make, or He doesn't. You can't have it both ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I'm autistic.  Maybe all your reasonings are going over my head here, but I was making the points I thought made the most sense to me.  I've already been eschewed by the Niednagels and others for having the wrong Brain Type, and then mainstream society doesn't like the way I think, either.  I don't know where I belong.  I guess I'm not Christian enough for the fundies, and not intellectual enough for all the rest of you.  Never mind, then.  I will go back and hide in my corner and realize once again that I can't win anywhere, no one thinks I have value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@formergothardite, your posts give me this feeling of relief. Like you, personally, have really and truly been on that same fundie path where I was for so long, and that you really get how the world changes when you're no longer fundie. I think I love you, lol.

@Khendra, I think you got off on the wrong foot comparing transgender issues to salvation issues. You should probably rethink that argument. I've been reading your posts, and I could be totally wrong, but it sounds like you've been hurt by a lot of people. Listen, nobody here thinks that you do not have value. Nobody said that. Their questions are good questions. This place will make you think and challenge your beliefs, and that's ok! 

You sound quite smart to me, and able to grasp theological complexities. There are all kinds of people here: Christians, witches, Buddhists, atheists, non-theists, pagans. There are even feminist Christians, as you can most certainly be both at the same time, lol. But if you speak in a negative manner regarding people who are feminist, atheist, or non-Christian, you will get pushback. That's ok too. It doesn't mean people don't want to engage; it means they're reading your posts and challenging you with a different viewpoint.

I'm not autistic, but I have mental illness. It can definitely make it hard to interact with others. Take a breath (or a break) and try again. Nobody is pushing you away. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Khendra said:

I guess I'm not Christian enough for the fundies, and not intellectual enough for all the rest of you.  Never mind, then.  I will go back and hide in my corner and realize once again that I can't win anywhere, no one thinks I have value.

FJ is a tough place, especially if one isn't used to having to defend one's beliefs against people who have probably held those beliefs at some point and are very knowledgeable on the subject. But just because people challenge you doesn't mean they want you to go away. An good part of FJ is people debating very difficult topics and it can get super heated. 

To be honest, despite reading @Palimpsest I'm still confused about what your version of predestination is. I literally can't wrap my mind around it. 

Instead of throwing up your hands and leaving, I would recommend thinking about the push back to your comments regarding people who are transgender, atheists and feminists. Stop and consider what people are saying. People had valid points, but if you aren't used to having to explain and defend your beliefs like is expected on FJ, this can be a bit of a shock. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you all have made clear that I'm an enemy and beneath all of you.  Now you're trying the fake empathy thing because you've seen you've been bullies.  The Lutherans have always been kinder to me.  Maybe their theology doesn't make sense to you, but they haven't bullied me the way you and the Niednagels have.  I'll take that over your snarky feminism liberalism and their arrogant black and white Calvinism any day.  Oddly enough, despite different world views, both of you think you have all the answers, are full of yourselves, are constantly looking to aggressively argue and defend your world views, and look down upon others for having different views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Khendra said:

No, you all have made clear that I'm an enemy and beneath all of you.  Now you're trying the fake empathy thing because you've seen you've been bullies. 

Good grief, I was actually sympathetic towards you, but now that is gone. I'm not sure what you thought FJ was, but it wasn't a place for people who get super sensitive when questioned about theology. 

FJ isn't for everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes of course, you were trying to be nice while the autistic freak girl was being stupid and you had to pile on her.  Heard this a million times.  This is why autistic people get depressed and suicidal.  Great job, neurotypicals.  Always absolving yourself of any responsibility for bullying autistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Khendra said:

Look, I'm autistic.  Maybe all your reasonings are going over my head here, but I was making the points I thought made the most sense to me.  I've already been eschewed by the Niednagels and others for having the wrong Brain Type, and then mainstream society doesn't like the way I think, either.  I don't know where I belong.  I guess I'm not Christian enough for the fundies, and not intellectual enough for all the rest of you.  Never mind, then.  I will go back and hide in my corner and realize once again that I can't win anywhere, no one thinks I have value.

No, please don't go and hide and assume no-one thinks you have value. 

You came over as a bit hostile and not understanding the purpose of FJ, that's all.  That was obviously not your intent.

Perhaps do a bit more reading here and find out more about who we are.  Give your opinion on other threads and ease in a bit more.   We have other people here who identify as being autistic, or on the spectrum, and other Missouri Synod Lutherans.  

We don't really bite (often), and other people have had rough entries to FJ and settled down to become valued posters.

And I'm rather interested in the Jon Niednagle possible cult thing so please stick around. :)

13 minutes ago, Khendra said:

Yes of course, you were trying to be nice while the autistic freak girl was being stupid and you had to pile on her.  Heard this a million times.  This is why autistic people get depressed and suicidal.  Great job, neurotypicals.  Always absolving yourself of any responsibility for bullying autistics.

Most people didn't know you were autistic.  I only just noticed that you disclosed that on the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Khendra, of which synod are you a member? I see you using the broad term, "Lutherans", but as I am sure you are aware, ELCA is not Missouri Synod is not Wisconsin Synod and so on and Soforth. In my experience, there is no predestination teaching, just a general sort of God wants everyone to go to Heaven,but we have the free will to reject faith, and whatever comes of those that reject faith is for God to decide. In any case, Lutherans are on a spectrum from ELCA to Apostolic, just like Autism, and there are sometimes huge doctrinal differences therein. Basically, this rambling is a public service announcement asking FJers to not paint us all with one brush. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Most people didn't know you were autistic.  I only just noticed that you disclosed that on the other thread.

Exactly. I did not know. This seemed to be a thread started to discuss things including the theology of predestination, a subject that I find confusing and then this particular form of predestination even more confusing. I don't think anyone meant it to be seen as bullying. I know I didn't. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Pandora Spocks said:

Khendra, of which synod are you a member? I see you using the broad term, "Lutherans", but as I am sure you are aware, ELCA is not Missouri Synod is not Wisconsin Synod and so on and Soforth. In my experience, there is no predestination teaching, just a general sort of God wants everyone to go to Heaven,but we have the free will to reject faith, and whatever comes of those that reject faith is for God to decide. In any case, Lutherans are on a spectrum from ELCA to Apostolic, just like Autism, and there are sometimes huge doctrinal differences therein. Basically, this rambling is a public service announcement asking FJers to not paint us all with one brush. 

I grew up ELCA, and I was taught that Lutherans believed in "single predestination" aka there are people God already knows are going to make it into heaven, in contrast with the Calvinist "double predestination" that some are going to heaven and the rest are gonna end up in the hot place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

There is a hole in their soul that leaves them feeling empty and only the right version of Jesus will fill that hole and make them content.

Life without Jesus is like a donut, 'cause there's a hole in the middle of your heart.

Anyone else grow up watching Donut Man?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, louisa05 said:

I have extremely fundamentalist relatives who were in a "Church of Christ"  denomination (not congregational or the United Church of Christ) and have had people here explain to me that that group is very, very liberal. Maybe they experienced a very liberal group with that name, but the group my relatives were shoulder deep in for years was extremely conservative and was skirts only until the 90s among other extreme positions. 

Haha, what? Church of Christ churches are known for being particularly fundie and not even allowing instruments! Those people must have been confusing it with UCC.

I have a lot of family who go to Assemblies of God churches, and that's a denomination that can vary quite a bit in terms of "fundieness."

One thing I don't get though is the idea of a liberal or non-fundie IFB church. If it isn't fundie (and to be clear, I'm not talking about just not wearing skirts here!) wouldn't it just be an independent baptist church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Khendra said:

Yes of course, you were trying to be nice while the autistic freak girl was being stupid and you had to pile on her.  Heard this a million times.  This is why autistic people get depressed and suicidal.  Great job, neurotypicals.  Always absolving yourself of any responsibility for bullying autistics.

Not everyone here is NT. Nor is challenging you to defend your ideas "bullying." Being autistic or otherwise neuro-diverse does not absolve you of being responsible for what you say and what you said about gender was insulting and transphobic. Nor does playing the passive-aggressive "I guess I'm just not good enough for you bullies" win you any points around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Haha, what? Church of Christ churches are known for being particularly fundie and not even allowing instruments! Those people must have been confusing it with UCC.

I have a lot of family who go to Assemblies of God churches, and that's a denomination that can vary quite a bit in terms of "fundieness."

One thing I don't get though is the idea of a liberal or non-fundie IFB church. If it isn't fundie (and to be clear, I'm not talking about just not wearing skirts here!) wouldn't it just be an independent baptist church?

Some Campbellites (offshoot of Presbyterians) used the name "Church of Christ" so it may have been that, not sure. It was cleared up quickly that neither of us were talking about the UCC. But it got really ugly as it was explained to me that my relatives could not possibly have been skirts only, no make-up, no curled hair, no tv, movies or secular music, no sports, no "mixed bathing", no women working (unless for the church) , strict gender roles fundies. Apparently, they were just liberal people who didn't own a television, preferred dresses and didn't like make-up. Or something like that. 

My relatives were in the Midwest connected to the Midwestern School of Evangelism in Ottumwa, IA. A lot of their version of CC churches used pianos, but nothing else. Some were no instruments. There is a lot of variance in the other legalistic matters. And they seem to have, in general given up the skirts-only, no make-up, no television, etc...rules in favor of more reasonable modesty guidelines and moderation in other things. I think none of them would go to an R rated movie in a mini skirt, but they'd go to a PG one in jeans. My relatives also were terribly unsuccessful in keeping their children in the group. Two of my mom's first cousins and their father were pastors in that group. The third surviving son of the uncle left the church as soon as he could. And not a single grandchild remains in it. Only one grandchild still attends any kind of church at all, and it's a mainline protestant church. I'm not convinced that the second generation of QF, VF, Gothardism, et al...will remain in large numbers, either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Khendra, I will not apologize for asking questions that you chose not to answer. It’s unfortunate for you that legitimate questions send you into a tizzy. Maybe you should work on your reactions to that in therapy—no snark, I’m a huge believer in therapy.

Instead you went all in on feminism and atheism and liberalism and NT-ism which I find both sad and stereotypical...though it does amuse me that you assume posters here only fit those categories. Lashing out with labels you obviously perceive as “bad” (spoiler alert: I don’t fit all those categories nor do I believe them to be “bad”) is also something you should work on in therapy. 

Lastly, the misuse of the term bullying is my new biggest pet peeve. 

 

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.