Yet his message seems radically unfashionable, even un-American: you are not captain of your soul or master of your fate but a depraved worm whose hard work and good deeds will get you nowhere, because God marked you for heaven or condemned you to hell before the beginning of time. Yet a significant number of young people in Seattle — and nationwide — say this is exactly what they want to hear. Calvinism has somehow become cool, and just as startling, this generally bookish creed has fused with a macho ethos. At Mars Hill, members say their favorite movie isn’t “Amazing Grace” or “The Chronicles of Narnia” — it’s “Fight Club.”…
Driscoll disdains the prohibitions of traditional evangelical Christianity. Taboos on alcohol, smoking, swearing and violent movies have done much to shape American Protestant culture — a culture that he has called the domain of “chicks and some chickified dudes with limp wrists.” Moreover, the Bible tells him that to seek salvation by self-righteous clean living is to behave like a Pharisee…
Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
That’s my pastor!!
And Allah, READ the article next time BEFORE you post a sarcastic headline like, “Good News:”
Mark’s an awesome man of God, and he’s doing a great job of reaching the lost in the nation’s 2nd most unchurched big city.
nickj116 on January 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM
A predictable result, I suppose, of the feminization of Christianity in our culture.
Real men don’t have to cuss– they just have to look at you.
Real men don’t sing sentimentalist songs which express feminine love toward Jesus, as though we want Him for a boyfriend. No, they sing the sturdy hymns of old, “The Son of God Goes Forth to War”, “Rise Again, Ye Lion-Hearted”, etc.
Real men don’t wallow in insipid, emotion-driven worship, but in angular, creedal, propositional religion. They express their love of God in a way befitting– of standing for what is right against all danger, of self-sacrifice to defend what is vital, to love without apology in strength and respect.
Real men worship where the pastor is not feminized, but a man without confusion.
Scribbler on January 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM
By the way, “cuss,” is the wrong word, seeing ad Driscoll never cusses. I guess for the writer of the article, “masturbation” and “oral” are cuss words.
nickj116 on January 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM
I read the whole thing. I actually dig Calvinism; it goes right to the heart of the absurdities of Christianity.
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM
You might want to read Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” for a response to much of what became Calvinism.
Any book that angers Nazis so much that they make a movie to refute its thesis “Triumph of the Will” four hundred years after it was written is surely worth reading.
Scribbler on January 10, 2009 at 12:57 PM
I want you to remember that quote when you stand before Christ one day. I really hope you get saved before then, but if not, remember that quote.
nickj116 on January 10, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Actually, your problem is with the formalization of certain ideas that were written by John Calvin; a formulization that actually occurred AFTER his death. His Institutes is far more compelling than what has simply become short hand for Calvin-ism, namely T.U.L.I.P. That aside, the “Calvinist” approach to working through the difficulties between the passages in Romans 9 and other more universal/inclusive passages in many of the Gospels, shouldn’t cause you to point to it as an absurdity of Christianity as a whole. In fact G.K. Chesterton, a wonderful devout Catholic, hated Calvinism, and yet still maintains the reasonable nature of Christianity. He disliked the doctrine, yet recognized that it is not a necessary of Christianity itself.
Weight of Glory on January 10, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Nah, it riffed off Nietzsche’s Will to Power which was a riff off of Schopenhauer’s Will to Live…
I’m not reformed anymore(on most days) but that headline is ridiculous… I like RC Sproul and Tim Keller though…
http://www.ligonier.org/rym.php
http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/2005/07/tim_keller_arti.html
ninjapirate on January 10, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Why? Jesus loves me; his father created me. Surely he’d rather forgive a poor wretch his doubts than see him suffer in agony forever, right?
See what I mean about the absurdities?
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Calvinism FTW.
Lehosh on January 10, 2009 at 1:19 PM
And incidentally, don’t think I don’t detect a note of maliciousness in your “I want you to remember that quote” admonition. You say you hope I get saved, but if I don’t, what you hope is that I’m tormented forever — for nothing more than skepticism.
I ended a friendship recently with an evangelical friend when I realized she thought I should burn, too. More atheists should draw the line on that.
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 1:19 PM
So you’re saying he is overcompensating in the other direction?
I wondered about that.
kc8ukw on January 10, 2009 at 1:20 PM
So regardless of whether you think it is true or not, how do you get by as a conservative without a belief in God? It seems to me that a lot of the principles we fight for came from religion. How can you argue for something like the moral equality of all men without appeal to a creator? What would that even mean? Presumably you believe in it, but how do you justify that belief?
kc8ukw on January 10, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I don’t “dig” Calvinism, but I do believe in a “come as you are” outreach. My first pastor was Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa back in the ’70s (the “Jesus Freak” movement – bare feet allowed). It was wonderful to find that he has freely distributed his Bible studies in mp3 format. What an awesome guy. If you have never read the word, you can glean much insight and historical knowledge by letting him walk you through the Scriptures like an audio book. Great speaking voice, excellent teacher.
Through the Bible
rhodeymark on January 10, 2009 at 1:25 PM
How could you not?
exception on January 10, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Rand hated religion, and there are a plethora of “religious” lefties these days. At least AP isn’t strident like a PZ Meyers.
rhodeymark on January 10, 2009 at 1:29 PM
What’s absurd is that you expect forgiveness and to be allowed in God’s presence while you still choose to reject God. Also, get educated about the faith. Hell is not Dante’s inferno, depsite the misconception of too many Christians. It is about dishonor from not being in the exalted community and the shame the results from that. Your emotional argument, weak as that is on it’s own, is also without merit.
aikidoka on January 10, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Indeed, but I give nick credit for being upfront about it. Most Christians I know don’t like to take acknowledge this aspect of Christianity; they preach peace, love, and tolerance, but politely neglect to mention the monstrous consequences — which they endorse by counting themselves as believers — if you don’t embrace Jesus. At least he’s forthright.
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 1:30 PM
For that matter, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that God hates “religion”. Read the letters to the Churches in Rev. 2-3
rhodeymark on January 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I wondered about this myself and my guess is that aspects of Allahpundit’s personality (pessimism) produce in him what theology produces in many Christian conservatives – a wariness of human nature and society’s belief in liberal goodness.
aengus on January 10, 2009 at 1:32 PM
No, what’s absurd is that you posit the idea of an all-forgiving God who obviously isn’t all-forgiving. According to you, I could be the filthiest scumbag rapist, find God in prison, beg earnestly for forgiveness, and be admitted to heaven, whereas the atheist who never harms a soul is condemned for eternity. And your distinction between hellfire and spiritual shame is meaningless: According to Christians, the latter is the worst torment you can suffer, vastly more so than physical pain.
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 1:33 PM
A heresy that sprung up over a thousand years after Christ doesn’t get to the heart of anything remotely Christian.
That’s funny, you routinely quote a man (Hitchens) who said he’d take great pleasure in participating in a civil war against fundamentalist Christians. Let’s not even get into the slander you directed at that RCC cardinal yesterday. I’m sure there are a bunch of Christians who want to see you burn, but it’s got nothing to do with “just skepticism”. You turned from a cool atheist into the average fundie atheist you find at the IIDB secular living board (or whatever the f**k they call it nowadays).
Darth Executor on January 10, 2009 at 1:33 PM
No, Bondage of the Will (which those philosophers mentioned also riffed off of, but Bondage is the ad fontes of that thread) was written in response to Erasmus’ On the Freedom of the Will, and thus was set against Scholasticism, but insofar as the heirs of Scholasticism today are indeed not only some of the Roman Catholics, but also the Reformed, it actually answers Calvin before he speaks.
Rather than saying it is an ‘overcompensation’ in the way of thesis-antithesis, in which only the synthesis is true at the end of the day, I would suggest that it is simply correct in distinction to the incorrect thesis of the scholastics of the fourteenth to early sixteenth centuries, and establishes the thesis against which Calvin, Zwingli, et alia chose to launch themselves in some respects.
Some truths are simply, objectively true, regardless of any variant theses.
And that’s a terribly anti-post-modernist thing, but there it is anyway. Righty then, gotta go– the beach is calling and it’s a lovely day on the south Oregon coast.
Scribbler on January 10, 2009 at 1:34 PM
I honestly don’t understand how you guys get by *with* belief. I’m hawkish and deeply skeptical about people’s capacity for goodness; Christianity would seem to counsel the opposite.
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 1:35 PM
The only people I see positing the idea of “all-forgiving GOd” are atheists (and the odd universalist). Keep burning the straw men.
Darth Executor on January 10, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Would you be more upset with someone who wanted you to burn in hell or someone who felt you would burn in hell and attempted to save your soul by proselytizing you?
Your statement reminded me of an episode of Seinfeld
Going to Hell
I couldn’t find the first scene that came before this because it makes this one all the more hilarious.
theguardianii on January 10, 2009 at 1:36 PM
No, actually I don’t. Christ died for the sins of the world, and gave human beings the option of either accepting his free gift of salvation, or rejecting it. It’s not about him wanting to see you suffer in hell. It’s your choice. You’ve heard the gospel message presented, Christ has given you ample opportunities to accept him, and if you don’t, that’s on you, not him.
nickj116 on January 10, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Hitchens said in “god is not great” that he wouldn’t ban religion even if he could. I haven’t seen anything about war with fundamentalist Christians, but if it’s true, I suspect much depends on his definition of “fundamentalist.”
It wasn’t slander at all. For anyone to use a loaded metaphor like “concentration camp” vis-a-vis Israeli policy is repulsive. The cardinal’s no dummy; he knows what he’s saying. You think the Wiesenthal Center is in the habit of condemning the church lightly?
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Yes but no one’s ever created a modern Aristotelian society or knows if thats possible or if anyone would want to live in it.
aengus on January 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Heh – you believe messenger RNA wrote & built itself, so there you go.
rhodeymark on January 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Yet I have no doubt that desire is not mutual. Consider the moral implications of that.
exception on January 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Ha, you don’t even know me, so to make a judgement on me like that is absurd. Of course I don’t want you to burn or to be tormented in hell. I want you to get saved. All I’m saying is that if you reject Christ over and over, your life ends, and you finally get to that moment when you stand before him in Heaven waiting to be judged, you should remember moments like this.
nickj116 on January 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM
No, don’t bother them with thoughts like that. Jesus is okay with me suffering, and that’s good enough.
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM
No, what’s absurd is that you posit the idea of an all-forgiving God who obviously isn’t all-forgiving.
So you want to be forgiven while still commiting that for which you demand forgiveness?
According to you, I could be the filthiest scumbag rapist, find God in prison, beg earnestly for forgiveness, and be admitted to heaven, whereas the atheist who never harms a soul is condemned for eternity.
I didn’t say that, you did. Learn something from more informed Christians or do some research.
And your distinction between hellfire and spiritual shame is meaningless: According to Christians, the latter is the worst torment you can suffer, vastly more so than physical pain.
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 1:33 PM
No, according to Christians you read/talk to it’s worse. Again, you’re not very informed. So still, your argument is without basis and is only one of emotional outrage to begin with.
Hint, the Bible was written in the context of an ancient near east culture.
aikidoka on January 10, 2009 at 1:43 PM
The cardinal is a twat, he shouldn’t have said that, he should be reprimanded harshly, and yes, I’m Catholic, so Allah’s in the right on this one.
doubleplusundead on January 10, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Yeah, he’s not known for double-speak or anything.
Pro-life = fundamentalist. It was a radio interview, I think.
It wasn’t “vis-avis Israeli policy”. He called Gaza a concentration camp because it IS a concentration camp (though he doesn’t realize it’s a concentration camp of the Palestinians’ own doing and they could end it whenever they wanted if they behaved in a civilized manner). Israel won’t let them go and heavily filters what goes in and out for obvious reasons and any refugee that gets into Egypt better hope their border guard doesn’t find them and gun them down on the spot. You went further and said he was implying the Israelis were nazis when there was no implication of anybody being a NAZI, the ridiculously called him a coward because he wouldn’t vocalize your delusion. It wasn’t an analogy (and for your information, the nazis weren’t the first to use concentration camps). The Cardinal was complaining about the IDF and Hamas duking it out with no concern for civilians. He’s still wrong but to claim he’s implying the jews are NAZIs with skull caps is just reactionary BS.
Darth Executor on January 10, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Yeah, this is more nonsense used to get God off the hook for the less savory aspects of Christianity. One of the things I like about Calvinism is that acknowledges the paradox that if God knows all, he knows what choices I’m going to make even before I’ve been born, my supposed “free will” notwithstanding. So I am, sort of, saved or condemned from the word go, my alleged “choice” notwithstanding.
I’m also heartened to see Darth Executor acknowledge that God is hardly “all forgiving.” Too many Christians try to float that. It’s more accurate to say he’s entirely forgiving of some things — murder, rape, genocide, child molestation, so long as you find Jesus and ask forgiveness — and entirely unforgiving of others. Like thinking the gospels are a tad far-fetched. Sorry if that makes me less than a “cool atheist.”
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Has there ever been such a man, whether atheist, agnostic, Christian, or otherwise?
Weight of Glory on January 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM
He didn’t say what Allah thinks he said. Someone else posted a more detailed account in the comments section.
Darth Executor on January 10, 2009 at 1:48 PM
And many scumbag rapists have found Christ in prison. That’s why many evangelical churches have prison outreach ministries. I’ll take your example even further. Look at Saul (before he became Paul). He murdered thousands and thousands of Christians, ended up finding God, and became one of his greatest servants.
Btw, I don’t know how someone could NOT believe in God. I always think about how perfectly our bodies are structured, and how complex they are, for example. Also, look at how amazing animals are, and how they all have unique functions, movements, capacities, colors, shapes etc.
This all didn’t just happen.
nickj116 on January 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Jesus is ok with you suffering? I thought you knew Christianity better than that. You are the one who would be ok with you suffering. You deny God you deny salvation. In your mind it doesn’t matter because to you they don’t exist. It is not God who is happy with you suffering at the end of days it is you for you believe that it does not exist and in turn it will not come.
But don’t be intellectually dishonest with what the Christ said. You can choose God or choose to deny him. One is the key to eternal salvation the other the key to eternal damnation.
God won’t be happy that you burn in hell even if you think He not it exist.
Freewill is what you have yet you would blame your choice of belief and the consequences thereof on the Being you claim not to exist and assert that he is happy about it?
That happy feeling is projection.
theguardianii on January 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM
He is a coward and it’s no delusion, unless doubleplusundead is sharing the same one. “Israel is a Nazi state” and “Israel is perpetrating a Holocaust on Palestinians” are global memes circulated by Jew-haters. To use a “concentration camp” metaphor under those circumstances is as loaded as it gets. Which, again, is why not only the Wiesenthal Center but the Israeli foreign ministry spoke up about it. They know code when they hear it.
I’ve got to get back to blogging.
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Ah, but it IS your choice. God knows what choice you’re going to make before your life ends, but you still have the freedom to make it.
You may think now that you’ll never ever accept Christ, but 30-40 years down the line, you may give your life over to him.
Seems impossible to you, but God knows.
nickj116 on January 10, 2009 at 1:52 PM
For the record, I think the parable of the talents applies here. If you were given nothing, nothing’s expected of you, no? So you might still end up dragging your carcass over the finish line (more specifically, I personally have no idea if the hotair blogger Allahpundit will end up in hell; it’s up to Jesus). But let’s not pretend you’re harmless. Atheism is akin to treason which is one of the worst crimes you can commit, and it inherently precludes repentance as long as you persist in it.
Darth Executor on January 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM
If DE believes that, he’s wrong. God IS all forgiving. He hates all sin, no matter what it is. However, some sins have harsher consequences than others. Doesn’t mean he won’t forgive you for them though. The one sin that he doesn’t forgive is not accepting him, though, and that’s why non-believers don’t go to Heaven.
nickj116 on January 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM
This is one of the interesting things about not being Christian. How many different truths have been given in this thread about what will happen to Allahpundit in the after life? Could a consensus be achieved? I say he’s Elected.
exception on January 10, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Oh for Darwin’s sake, IT’S NOT A METAPHOR. HE LITERALLY THINKS IT’S A CONCENTRATION CAMP!
Or they jumped the gun (though I can’t blame them, it sure feels like the world hates Israel; what’s your excuse?).
http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2009-01-08_108309561.html
Darth Executor on January 10, 2009 at 2:00 PM
All forgiving in the sense AP is using it means He forgives all. He does not forgive if one does not repent, therefore He does not forgive all.
Darth Executor on January 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM
We can’t get a consensus on nearly every subject. There’s people who think the earth is flat. There’s holocaust deniers. There’s people who think the world will end in 2012. Atheists need to stop acting like a lack of consensus within Christianity means anything.
Darth Executor on January 10, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Calvinism is deeply beautiful and comes directly out of the Bible. But you won’t understand one bit of it from the NYT.
Your salvation will be consistent with your choices. Your choices have to come from somewhere, or they are just random. They come from your nature, and since God created your nature, he created your choices.
A person’s rejection of God seems like a small thing, but it leads people who you come in contact with, especially your future spouse and children, away from God. The long term implications of that towards society are immense, and so it makes sense that God would consider it a sin just as any other.
I think if you clear your mind and look at the big picture it will make sense. I will pray for that.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 2:03 PM
AP, I don’t understand some of the things you have said here and in the past. In previous posts you, and others, have pointed to the proposition of “the Problem of Evil”, as proof of the inability of Christianity in particular and theists in general to account for both a loving God and Evil in the world. Then in posts like this, you point to the existence of eternal judgment/punishment as being just as much of an Achilles heal. The kind of complete eradication of evil that you seem to require in the former example would require the kind of eternal, universal, and complete judgment that you decry in the latter example. Thus, is your problem then one of timing? CS Lewis address your concerns in the book The Problem of Pain.
Weight of Glory on January 10, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Good to see Weight of Glory commenting again.
The doctrines or decree of God is a separate issue from the philosophical question of, “does God exist or not?”
God may exist, even though one may object to his doctrine. Or one may object to what God says about this or that issue.
Atheists confuse this often.
In other news, today I found out that Korn guitarist found Jesus Christ.
This “old piece of news” reveals how out of touch I am with the music scene, I guess.
ColtsFan on January 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Thanks, friend.
Weight of Glory on January 10, 2009 at 2:16 PM
I’ve gotten a lot out of Greg Boyd’s God at War wrt to the “problem of pain” and overcoming the effects of Calvanism in my early Christian education.
Oh, and I had a pastor who used to cuss sometimes. Guy was a former Marine. My current pastor once said “a$$hole” from the pulpit, but he prefaced it by telling us he was quoting someone else, so it wasn’t quite as fun.
TexasDan on January 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Of course there are and will continue to be many disagreements. However, even the few commenters in this thread cannot agree on AP’s fate on his present course?
exception on January 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Pulitzer.
Weight of Glory on January 10, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Funny thing this article. I am decidedly not a Driscoll fan, and some of the things in the article articulate why.
However, I feel as if Calvinism is more than a bit misrepresented in this article – by the author, and by Driscoll as well. I think it might be better to speak of “Calvinisms” rather than a singular body of theology. It was actually Calvin’s followers who increased an emphasis on “double pre-destination.”
Anyway, the author does a good job in trying to paint Driscoll as a cult leader, and in demonstrating a lack of understanding of Calvinism. Does anyone get to write for NYT? Maybe as long as you subscribe to the narrative.
What’s up Colts Fan?
nailinmyeye on January 10, 2009 at 2:27 PM
May I be an un-Elected Calvinist?
ToddW on January 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Huh?
Not Calvinism, anyway. Which is one thing that attracts me to it.
nailinmyeye on January 10, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Selected! Not Elected!
just kidding
nailinmyeye on January 10, 2009 at 2:42 PM
ColtsFan on January 10, 2009 at 2:43 PM
I doubt it. To me it seems more like, “God is good, whether you reject him or not, & if you are condemned, it’s because you chose that path.”
jgapinoy on January 10, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Don’t bother about the website. I haven’t updated in forever. School got crazy, we had a baby, and I am less than a chapter away from submitting my thesis…finally. Next month I’m hoping. When life settles, I may have time for blogging again.
Thanks.
nailinmyeye on January 10, 2009 at 2:48 PM
AP, I’m a strong Christian believer but am not much into the organized church. Part of the problem with HotAir in particular is that there are so many Catholics in here. You can’t be critical of anything Catholic without being considered a bigot. . . even if you are pointing out the bigoted nature of a Catholic Cardinal (they called it slander, but it isn’t when it’s the truth).
The organized Church spends a lot of time condemning people. The Bible does not. John 3:17 – For God came into the world NOT TO CONDEMN THE WORLD but so that the world through Him might be saved.
Most of Christianity and man’s relationship with God is based on consequences for your actions. The Bible is mostly a history book, but it is also a ‘learn from our mistakes’ book.
It’s too bad that Christians are quick to condemn people to hell. Christianity is about God’s love. It seems as though Jesus getting crucified isn’t enough for you. As you would have him forgive you specifically and personally if you rejected him – or else it would ‘prove’ that He’s not very nice.
What you are saying is that he died on a cross for me, but he forgive me for not caring about that whole deal.
Actions have consequences. Premarital sex. . . if you have it you won’t immediately go up in flames, but if you are with the wrong person, your urine might. It isn’t because God ‘hates’ you. . . it’s because actions have consequences.
While I don’t condemn others to hell for not believing, I can’t imagine how someone could hear of the Gospel and not love Jesus for what He did (regardless of what that means for your afterlife – heaven or hell).
But of course, most Christians would condemn me to hell for not going to Church. And Catholics. . . well they just condemn you to hell for not being Catholic. . . and even then you got to watch yourself.
But really AP, you should get your information from the texts and not preachers. You’ll see the light when you realize the love involved in what Jesus did. I wouldn’t die for you. . . Jesus did.
ThackerAgency on January 10, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I have heard this view articulated before by AP, and it really surprised me at the time. I do believe a well-read guy like AP would have thought differently.
ColtsFan on January 10, 2009 at 3:05 PM
The guy obviously subscribes to a doctrine that is not Christian at all. Unfortunately in Christianity, too many nutcases could stand up and start their own sect in their own twisted view. That is why there are so many denominations – all a reflection of the minds of the men who started them.
keep the change on January 10, 2009 at 3:24 PM
I have long been hoping for a macho turn Christianity. I would also like Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and militant atheism to turn macho. It’s not that I actually like macho religion. I don’t, but we need to fight back against the swaggering bully that is Islam. If you were picked on in Middle school, the bully had the exact same values that Islam teaches. Bullies can only be stopped by fighting back. We who want people to behave with moral decency, whether we are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, Wiccan or whatever, have to fight back now. We can always return to softer religions when it is safe after victory.
thuja on January 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Reaching them for what? According to him, nothing he does will make a difference.
I’ve never understood Calvinism.
Thanks, AP.
No, and that’s the whole point actually. If it were possible that such a person could exist, then Christianity actually would be absurd.
Your pastor seems to disagree.
Esthier on January 10, 2009 at 4:06 PM
That’s probably because it’s impossible to say. No one can predict the future. Maybe he needs to keep going in this direction in order to “find God” or maybe it would only make him hate Christians even more.
I don’t see the point in guessing.
Esthier on January 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Nobody seems to remember just how emphasis on Calvin worked out during the English Revolution. Another noble experiment. Cost Charlie his head but that was his problem. Thirty or so years later a stronger king was invited to overcome corruption and villainy.
This is NYT prevent defense. The usual opinion as fact. “Let’s you and him fight.”
There are some of us who have done a bit of study and understand that history is relevant still because men have not changed. SOS. Men still must stand for principles that protect and benefit their families. These same conservative principles protect and benefit society. They are honesty, character, a work ethic and trust-but-verify. And preparation, the semper fi kind. These are some of what Driscoll emphases. So he has other concepts, too. Why should he not? AP does a service here.
We have so emphasized non-discrimination that the original meaning of thoughtful weighing of concepts is debased. Discernment and discrimination are parts of the same idea. Judgment. Another word debased by the fascists who have none. Logic and reason are still pillars of our nation. Emotion in place of logic and reason is disaster.
Flying Gadsden Flag.
Caststeel on January 10, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I figure the entire idea of retributive punishment is some sort of masturbatory fantasy espoused by Christians; in this regard the Calvinists are like the porn addicts of the Christian world.
Nonfactor on January 10, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Oooh, edgy.
Dork B. on January 10, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Even more accurate to say, unforgiving of turning your back on the salvation offered by Christ. It was His Son, after all.
And yes, good to see you, Weight of Glory.
emailnuevo on January 10, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Precisely correct, on everything. + millions.
emailnuevo on January 10, 2009 at 4:52 PM
You guessed it. We secretly jack off to the thought of people like you burning in hell. Guess our cover’s blown now. Oh well. Life will go on I suppose.
Esthier on January 10, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Tomato, to-mah-to. I’ve “turned my back” on salvation because I’m using the critical faculties God supposedly gave me to question the gospels, but the piece-of-sh*t rapist who abuses 100 women and then repents is A-OK. Insane.
What I can’t get over is how many of you guys are willing to excuse God and other Biblical characters for things you’d condemn if done by an actual person. The atheist favorite in this regard is Abraham and Isaac, but the insanity of punishing skeptics more harshly than violent yet repentant criminals is a nice example too. So intuitively unjust is it that most Christians in conversation will try to steer away from the subject or just give up and say that agnostics can get into heaven, too. I’m not being cute when I say that I admire those who are so devout that they’re willing to tell me I’m going to hell. That’s what the faith preaches, so own it.
Allahpundit on January 10, 2009 at 5:14 PM
You admire them so much that you won’t be friends with them. I have a problem squaring that logic.
Abraham didn’t kill his son.
You’ve turned your back on God because you’ve made it all about the Gospels. Accepting God is more than accepting religion. And it has nothing to do with other people.
Maybe everything in the Bible is a complete lie. That’s doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.
Esthier on January 10, 2009 at 5:22 PM
The forgiveness is conditional. But you knew that.
baldilocks on January 10, 2009 at 5:32 PM
What are you going to do? Stop her from believing that?
baldilocks on January 10, 2009 at 5:33 PM
God is forgiving of all who ask for forgiveness. If you don’t want it and/or explicitly reject it, you don’t get it. It’s not a difficult concept.
baldilocks on January 10, 2009 at 5:37 PM
That guy is trying way too hard to be macho.
RightOFLeft on January 10, 2009 at 5:43 PM
God is forgiving of all that stuff if the person is sincerely repentant. Where some Christians get muddled up is when they try to help a given repentant sinner of the type mentioned above escape the earthly consequences of their actions, e.g. the death penalty.
baldilocks on January 10, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Which is probably why we Christians are admonished to not judge the condition of another’s heart.
baldilocks on January 10, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Really? That not what JC said.
Matthew 15:18-19
You ought to know more (like everything) about what you’re repudiating.
baldilocks on January 10, 2009 at 5:54 PM
AP is pointing out the complex issue of proportional punishment for sin. It’s not a simple problem, and the answer in the Bible is not simple either. Hard work is rewarded in the hereafter, but the Bible does not spell out exactly how it will be done. Your basic salvation is not earned, however. That much is a gift, because nothing we do could deserve it. Everyone has sinned, so in that way we are no more deserving of heaven than a rapist. All sins can be forgiven by God, and once someone has been cleansed by God there is no reason to think that person will still need to be punished, regardless of what they had done, because of God’s unlimited power of cleaning away the sin.
Because God created the world and everyone in it, it follows logically that in the process he in effect decided who would wind up saved.
Our acceptance of Jesus is simply a sign to us that we are saved. Our salvation comes from God, not from our acceptance of Jesus. Our asking for forgiveness is the expression of a soul that has already been saved.
pedestrian on January 10, 2009 at 5:56 PM
I think Christians here are being way too dismissive of AP’s concern. It’s hard to think of anyone being so bad that they deserve eternal torment or that a loving God could stand by and watch you in agony for all eternity without stopping it.
Usually, if something is great to do you get a great reward for achieving it but nothing bad happens for not achieving it, or something is awful to do you get a great punishment for it but you don’t get a reward for not doing it (like murder). With Heaven and Hell, you have the biggest extremes of the carrot and stick at the same time. If Heaven is so great, why would we need Hell to motivate us towards it, and if Hell is so bad, why would we need the rewards of Heaven to motivate us away from it?
frankj on January 10, 2009 at 6:15 PM
What concern? AP isn’t worried about anything here. He’s merely mocking the Christians.
Also, I responded to this on the other thread.
Esthier on January 10, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Actually…no, I don’t.
Justice has its place as well as love. Misunderstanding God’s nature is central to atheists justifications of their view — let alone of their ridicule of Christianity.
And no one precluded you choosing the agonies over God.
Aronne on January 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM
“The agonies.” That’s cute.
Nonfactor on January 10, 2009 at 8:48 PM