Contention Over What Constitutes An Evangelical

[Paloma]

As a non-LDS Christian, I find this discussion very interesting.

I especially appreciate Calmoriah's concern for representing the Protestant position re penal substitution fairly and accurately.

I am a Protestant raised in a Calvinist tradition and now leaning much more toward Armenianism (Cal-Arminian is my self-description, because I see strengths and weaknesses in both camps).

However, like many Protestants, I recognize the limitations of systematic theology. Any system of theology is an attempt to explain and codify Biblical truths about God and about His ways and His dealings with human beings. While useful, systematic theology necessarily has its weaknesses and limitations. While God invites us to know Him and while He desires to draw us into an intimate relationship with Him, it is still true that He is vastly greater and different from us ("my ways are not your ways", etc.).

During my years of studying at a theological institute, one of my favourite courses was "Biblical Theology" which does not attempt to systematize Biblical concepts but simply sees what arises from a study of any given story, event, parable, passage etc.

Both theological approaches are valuable, especially when accompanied by a spirit of humility and a recognition of inherent human limitations. One of my professors in a Systematic Theology class began the course with a reminder that we are all filled with a thousand heresies.

As with any 'living subject', Christian theology is constantly being re-thought and re-worked in an effort to understand the great thinkers of the past and to add new voices to our attempt to know God and to understand and communicate His truth as well as possible.

In that light, I want to mention this website;

http://clarionjourna...ken-by-god.html

[Paloma]

I wasn't able to copy and paste some of the content on the website I mentioned above, but it contains a description and discussion of a fresh conversation including a number of scholars including N.T. Wright regarding Protestant thinking surrounding the Atonement. "Stricken by God?" directly addresses the penal substitution theory.

[Darren10]

You are on a roll!

A result in late night posting, I'm afraid but thanks.

[Calm]

I wasn't able to copy and paste some of the content on the website I mentioned above, but it contains a description and discussion of a fresh conversation including a number of scholars including N.T. Wright regarding Protestant thinking surrounding the Atonement. "Stricken by God?" directly addresses the penal substitution theory.

Thank you, I look forward to reading it.

[Calm]

As a non-LDS Christian, I find this discussion very interesting.

I especially appreciate Calmoriah's concern for representing the Protestant position re penal substitution fairly and accurately.

Like I said, I much prefer going to a firsthand source rather then the secondary and tertitary sp? ones wiki uses. I read somewhere they preferred secondhand sources and I was going huh? If I got that right, I guess it is to remove the pro/con element as if one can remove bias from what one is writing.

Anyway, I go for accuracy and nuances and details over objectivity every day in trying to understand a position. Perhaps you in your associations with other Protestants have discussed Penal Substitution theory. I am wondering how popular you see it is among Protestants, especially the conservative element who identify themselves as evangelicals.

[Paloma]

Calmoriah, I'm responding to you here.

My computer is acting up, and I can't even quote from your post above, but you wrote: "Perhaps you in your associations with other protestants have discussed Penal Substitution theory. I am wondering how popular you see it is among Protestants, especially the conservative element who identify themselves as evangelicals".

My experience within circles of Christian friends, church and even theological seminaries is that my colleagues and I generally see the different theories explaining the Atonement as all adding some helpful perspective but that no one theory is completely accurate or sufficient. (Differing theories include the Satisfaction theory, Penal Substitution, the Ransom theory, the Atonement as Victory, and the Moral Influence theory.)

While the Penal Substitution theory is very prevalent among Evangelicals, there are many nuances of understanding. Language such as "He paid our debt (wages of sin)", "He became (or bore) a curse for us", "He took (or bore) our punishment" is common. However, I rarely hear such sentiments in a context of setting Christ in opposition to the Father. More often, the sense is that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19)

I recall reading a story about a missionary in India who spent his life among people with leprosy, fully knowing that he would likely become a leper himself. And he did contract leprosy. This story was used as an illustration of the idea that Christ "became sin for us". Of course, there is so much more to Christ's sacrifice, especially in terms of His own divinity, incarnation, sinless nature, and sacrifice. But it's a helpful analogy, even though it can only go so far. I find that the various theories surrounding the Atonement are seen in much the same way, helpful but inadequate. I don't find any one theory to have a central place in our day to day theology, even though the Penal Substitution theory is subtly referenced in the language we tend to employ, as I noted in my paragraph above. However, there's generally no mention or awareness of the theory, let alone its implications and ramification (other than in a classroom setting or in-depth theological discussion).

As a matter of interest, most Christians who think of themselves as "evangelical" (in my experience) do so in much the same way as an LDS person would think of oneself as devout or TBM (true believing). Not all, but a significant number of us are aware of the historical rise of the Evangelical Movement in the mid twentieth century. However, whether we understand history and study theology or not, we tend to think of ourselves as believers who have a literal belief in the divinity, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We see ourselves as followers of Jesus of Nazareth. We believe the gospel or good news (Gk. evangelion) and have a passion for spreading the good news to others. We are found in many, many denominations and we are not only in the Protestant tradition. Not everyone would agree with me, but many would.

[3DOP]

Like I said, I much prefer going to a firsthand source rather then the secondary and tertitary sp? ones wiki uses. I read somewhere they preferred secondhand sources and I was going huh? If I got that right, I guess it is to remove the pro/con element as if one can remove bias from what one is writing.

Anyway, I go for accuracy and nuances and details over objectivity every day in trying to understand a position. Perhaps you in your associations with other Protestants have discussed Penal Substitution theory. I am wondering how popular you see it is among Protestants, especially the conservative element who identify themselves as evangelicals.

I think I know what they mean calmoriah.

One of my favorite books on the Spanish Inquisition is written by an historian from Barcelona, Spain and published by Yale University Press who gives no appearance of being Catholic or Protestant. I think he is probably just a disinterested Spanish historian who wants to get his picture of his country's past and facts correct. Much of the literature that shaped political and religious developments in the West during the 17th and 18th Centuries depended heavily on assumptions that singular allegations of ignominious acts on the part of officials with approval by the Catholic Church are true. That is why even to this day, one is met with instantaneous resistance against any thoughts along lines that would reevaluate and exonerate political and religious figures who have perhaps been unjustly villainized for centuries. The Inquisition remains a hot potato and that is why it is valuable to see what someone says about it who seems not to have any agenda.

I think it is ideal when one can find a neutral and competent party. The problem is that with regards to most questions that relate to religion or politics, everybody who is interested has an agenda. One doesn't ordinarily study a subject unless it has some personal meaning. History usually becomes an exercise in explaining why, even though the historian might be biased, he has followed accepted methods of analysis to arrive at his point of view.

3DOP

[Calm]

Calmoriah, I'm responding to you here.

My computer is acting up, and I can't even quote from your post above, but you wrote: "Perhaps you in your associations with other protestants have discussed Penal Substitution theory. I am wondering how popular you see it is among Protestants, especially the conservative element who identify themselves as evangelicals".

My experience within circles of Christian friends, church and even theological seminaries is that my colleagues and I generally see the different theories explaining the Atonement as all adding some helpful perspective but that no one theory is completely accurate or sufficient. (Differing theories include the Satisfaction theory, Penal Substitution, the Ransom theory, the Atonement as Victory, and the Moral Influence theory.)

While the Penal Substitution theory is very prevalent among Evangelicals, there are many nuances of understanding. Language such as "He paid our debt (wages of sin)", "He became (or bore) a curse for us", "He took (or bore) our punishment" is common. However, I rarely hear such sentiments in a context of setting Christ in opposition to the Father. More often, the sense is that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19)

I recall reading a story about a missionary in India who spent his life among people with leprosy, fully knowing that he would likely become a leper himself. And he did contract leprosy. This story was used as an illustration of the idea that Christ "became sin for us". Of course, there is so much more to Christ's sacrifice, especially in terms of His own divinity, incarnation, sinless nature, and sacrifice. But it's a helpful analogy, even though it can only go so far. I find that the various theories surrounding the Atonement are seen in much the same way, helpful but inadequate. I don't find any one theory to have a central place in our day to day theology, even though the Penal Substitution theory is subtly referenced in the language we tend to employ, as I noted in my paragraph above. However, there's generally no mention or awareness of the theory, let alone its implications and ramification (other than in a classroom setting or in-depth theological discussion).

As a matter of interest, most Christians who think of themselves as "evangelical" (in my experience) do so in much the same way as an LDS person would think of oneself as devout or TBM (true believing). Not all, but a significant number of us are aware of the historical rise of the Evangelical Movement in the mid twentieth century. However, whether we understand history and study theology or not, we tend to think of ourselves as believers who have a literal belief in the divinity, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We see ourselves as followers of Jesus of Nazareth. We believe the gospel or good news (Gk. evangelion) and have a passion for spreading the good news to others. We are found in many, many denominations and we are not only in the Protestant tradition. Not everyone would agree with me, but many would.

Thank you for the response, very helpful.

[Five Solas]

How can *goodness* in a belief in Jesus Christ be demonic?

Your probably stated the question better than I did, Darren10. Calvinism is nothing if not Christ-centered. And yet Dr. Midgley has labeled Dr. Mohler's theology, "Demonic." So what are we to make of it?

Hey, congrats!!! Just wait until the first hits baby sitting age. Now *that's* a blessing.

Thanks! Maybe I can even recoup some of my current babysitting expense...

;0)

--Erik

[Calm]

Your probably stated the question better than I did, Darren10. Calvinism is nothing if not Christ-centered. And yet Dr. Midgley has labeled Dr. Mohler's theology, "Demonic." So what are we to make of it?

It is the teachings about God the Father that are the main issue, from what I've read. The Creator (who is seen as the Father, right? or is it Christ?) creates mankind, saves some and condemns the others to a horrible spiritual death and punishment without any possibility of one of them changing their destiny. That is the idea that I've heard described as "demonic" or "repulsive". Is this a correct portrayal or not? Did the Father not create and then predestinate some for saving by Christ to live with him eternally in bliss and the rest are condemned to hell? And there was nothing save his own Will that led him to do it this way? So he could have done it differently if he so desired? Edited January 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

Your probably stated the question better than I did, Darren10. Calvinism is nothing if not Christ-centered. And yet Dr. Midgley has labeled Dr. Mohler's theology, "Demonic." So what are we to make of it?

--Erik

Calvanism erases a part fo the lord which has always existed: His obligating His chosen people to do their part for Him and that will determine their worthiness into the kingdom of God. No predestination, no guaranteeing entrance into the Lord's kingdom. Satan wanted guarantees, not God.

[mfbukowski]

It is the teachings about God the Father that are the main issue, from what I've read. The Creator (who is seen as the Father, right? or is it Christ?) creates mankind, saves some and condemns the others to a horrible spiritual death and punishment without any possibility of one of them changing their destiny. That is the idea that I've heard described as "demonic" or "repulsive". Is this a correct portrayal or not? Did the Father not create and then predestinate some for saving by Christ to live with him eternally in bliss and the rest are condemned to hell? And there was nothing save his own Will that led him to do it this way? So he could have done it differently if he so desired?

And of course that includes those who could not possibly know about Christ because they lived in Java in 300 BC.

No God I know would condemn his children to eternal fire for living in such a time and place.

But the excuse is then "general revelation". They are supposed to deduce the existence of God from nature.

But that is not the same test we get. It is not just no matter how one looks at it.

[Calm]

But the excuse is then "general revelation". They are supposed to deduce the existence of God from nature.

But that would be better if it meant they had a chance to change their lives, but they only do if God Wills it, if God has chosen them. They can deduce all they want, live the perfect lives in all by one moment of coveting their brother's Thor Avenger Actionfigure over their own Disney Little Mermaid Princess (at least Mom could have gotten Merrida, she can shoot!) and they are still condemned to eternal fire.

Or so it seems from what I have been told by Calvinists about what they believe and I would love to be corrected...because to me it seems unjust and unmerciful even if God is sovereign and his Will is supreme.

Edited January 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[EllenMaksoud]

It is the teachings about God the Father that are the main issue, from what I've read. The Creator (who is seen as the Father, right? or is it Christ?) creates mankind, saves some and condemns the others to a horrible spiritual death and punishment without any possibility of one of them changing their destiny. That is the idea that I've heard described as "demonic" or "repulsive". Is this a correct portrayal or not? Did the Father not create and then predestinate some for saving by Christ to live with him eternally in bliss and the rest are condemned to hell? And there was nothing save his own Will that led him to do it this way? So he could have done it differently if he so desired?

Wow, this is a really deep conversation, and having read this whole thread, I feel lost. Even the Wiki on Calvanisim/Armenianisim gets really involved. Further, I don't think Heavenly Father says a thing about some of this.

[Calm]

Wow, this is a really deep conversation, and having read this whole thread, I feel lost. Even the Wiki on Calvanisim/Armenianisim gets really involved. Further, I don't think Heavenly Father says a thing about some of this.

Calvinism is very different than our own faith. According to our faith, the Father's work is to bring men joy and immortal life, not demonstrate his sovereignty and omnipotence (which it appears that Calvinism is).

From Moses 1....which is a stunningly beautiful chapter when you get into it, not only God talking about his creations and what is Moses' place in them, but even the confrontation between Moses and Satan and Moses declaring his loyalty to God..

31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purposehave I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.

32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

Up to here, we would agree with Calvinists, I believe, but we depart dramatically here:

36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

In all of this everything....he is doing it all for us, for mankind, which means for me as much as the next guy and the next guy as much as for me. It is rather unspeakably wonderful to contemplate. All this effort shows a limitless love and power....why do we fear at all about anything when we are told this is what life is all about?

[mfbukowski]

But that would be better if it meant they had a chance to change their lives, but they only do if God Wills it, if God has chosen them. They can deduce all they want, live the perfect lives in all by one moment of coveting their brother's Thor Avenger Actionfigure over their own Disney Little Mermaid Princess (at least Mom could have gotten Merrida, she can shoot!) and they are still condemned to eternal fire.

Or so it seems from what I have been told by Calvinists about what they believe and I would love to be corrected...because to me it seems unjust and unmerciful even if God is sovereign and his Will is supreme.

Agreed!

[Paloma]

Seeing that Calvinism is being discussed here now, please allow me to describe what I was taught and experienced growing up in a Calvinist family and church. The most important concept that was stressed was God's sovereignty, hand in hand with God's love. The first Bible verse I learned was "we love Him because He first loved us". The idea that God was in control and that nothing could happen without His knowledge or ultimate care was prevalent. Passages like Romans 8 ("If God is for us, who can be against us?") were often referenced. While I learned about predestination and the elect, this was always in the context of God's foreknowledge, and was balanced with "God is not willing that any should perish". I recall one minister describing predestination as an arch through which we pass. On the side as we enter we read " Whosoever believes and comes" , and on the other side looking back, we read "Foreordained, elected and chosen by God". (Although I could go on further, I'll stop here mainly because my computer is very frustrating and won't allow me to start a new paragraph! Too much text in one paragraph is not reader-friendly!!! Besides, I've given the main gist of what I wanted to communicate. Although Calvinism may seem harsh and unfair {I get that!!}, that was definitely not my experience in my Calvinist family and church.

[Calm]

Seeing that Calvinism is being discussed here now, please allow me to describe what I was taught and experienced growing up in a Calvinist family and church. The most important concept that was stressed was God's sovereignty, hand in hand with God's love. The first Bible verse I learned was "we love Him because He first loved us". The idea that God was in control and that nothing could happen without His knowledge or ultimate care was prevalent. Passages like Romans 8 ("If God is for us, who can be against us?") were often referenced. While I learned about predestination and the elect, this was always in the context of God's foreknowledge, and was balanced with "God is not willing that any should perish". I recall one minister describing predestination as an arch through which we pass. On the side as we enter we read " Whosoever believes and comes" , and on the other side looking back, we read "Foreordained, elected and chosen by God". (Although I could go on further, I'll stop here mainly because my computer is very frustrating and won't allow me to start a new paragraph! Too much text in one paragraph is not reader-friendly!!! Besides, I've given the main gist of what I wanted to communicate. Although Calvinism may seem harsh and unfair {I get that!!}, that was definitely not my experience in my Calvinist family and church.

You expressed it beautifully, thank you.

"God is not willing that any should perish".....with this I could see Calvinism as a loving faith and can see why some would see it as such if this is the interpretation they follow, but isn't this universalism since it is God's will if one is saved (does not perish)?

PS: no argument here, trying to understand only

Edited January 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Vance]

If it is God's will that all be saved, and if God decideds who is saved, then why doesn't he save everyone?

[mathonihah]

From Wiki itself...which leads me to respect its owners greatly:

http://en.wikipedia....ia:Academic_use

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia....eral_disclaimer

Why would anyone informed make a greater case of authoritativeness, etc. than it does for itself?

That is a bit unprofessional. If you are determined to find negative opinion about something you are likely to find some. I prefer to give a balanced opinion. Wikipedia's own disclaimer is for legal reasons, to cover their own backs. But other independent studies have been more favorable than what you have quoted. Here is a quote from an article in the Wikipedia itself about its own reliability:

Reliability of Wikipedia

The

reliability of Wikipedia

(primarily of the English-language edition), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.

Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal

Nature

said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in

Encyclopædia Britannica

and had a similar rate of "serious errors". The study by

Nature

was disputed by

Encyclopædia Britannica

, and later

Nature

replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of

Britannica'

s main objections. Between 2008 and 2010, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology, toxicology, oncology and pharmaceuticals comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, so assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects" and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities". A 2007 peer-reviewed study stated that "42% of damage is repaired almost immediately... Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views."

Several incidents have also been publicized in which false information has lasted for a long time in Wikipedia. In May 2005, a user added several false and defamatory statements to the biographical article John Seigenthaler. The inaccurate information went unnoticed until September 2005, when they were discovered by a friend of Seigenthaler. After the information was removed from Wikipedia, it remained for another three weeks on sites that mirror Wikipedia content. A biographical article in French Wikipedia portrayed Léon-Robert de L'Astran as an 18th century anti-slavery ship owner, which led Ségolène Royal, a presidential candidate, to praise him. A student investigation later determined that the article was a hoax and de L'Astran had never existed.

Here is a quote from a BBC News report on the research carried out by the respected British scientific Journal Nature on the accuracy of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia survives research test

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Here is a quote from an article on the CNET News site, based on the same research:

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

[Calm]

Here is a quote from an article in the Wikipedia itself about its own reliability:

Which I pointed to in my comment (the see also)...sometimes it appears you don't read posts beyond the first line or tow before responding to them. It makes it harder to take your criticism seriously.

If you are claiming that encyclopedias are somehow more reliable than the sources they are quoting, I have to wonder about your reasoning.

If I want to know what someone believes, I prefer to ask her, not turn to her neighbour and ask him.

Edited January 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[mathonihah]

Which I pointed to in my comment (the see also)...sometimes it appears you don't read posts beyond the first line or tow before responding to them. It makes it harder to take your criticism seriously.

If you are claiming that encyclopedias are somehow more reliable than the sources they are quoting, I have to wonder about your reasoning.

If I want to know what someone believes, I prefer to ask her, not turn to her neighbour and ask him.

I still find your comments puzzling. No source of information is going to be infallible. All sources will contain, or are likely to contain some errors. But according to the independent research carried out in information I posted, Wikipedia is credited to be a reasonably reliable source of information.

[Paloma]

In answer to "Calmoriah's "Isn't that universalism if God is not willing that any should perish" ...

This brings me to free will which is very much emphasized in Armenianism, but not totally absent from Calvinism. The idea is that God is FOR all people. Personally, I think that any representation of Calvinism that indicates otherwise is a misrepresentation of God's love, mercy, kindness, goodness, justice and sovereignty.

I really don't like theological "ism's" very much, and certainly realize that they are simply human constructs where thinking people put their minds to trying to explain divine truth. But God and the things of God cannot be tidily put into boxes of even brilliant and well-intentioned human thought.

Years ago, a (Calvinist) Presbyterian minister was one of my profs at a Bible school that I attended many years prior to my attending a graduate theological seminary. This prof explained our relationship with God by saying that we are not like baby kittens being carried by our napes by the mother cat, helpless to assent or object. Nor are we like baby monkeys hanging on for dear life while our monkey parent swings from branch to branch. Rather we are like a human child walking side by side and hand in hand with our parent, secure in the parents' love and willingly walking and obeying in return.

In one simple analogy, this story recognizes and rejects stereotyped Calvinism and stereotyped Armenianism and describes real life experience.

[Calm]

Which makes total sense to me, Paloma and again thank you for answering, but it doesn't make sense to me with the concept of predestination, but if what is needed is to simply leave it as a hope and trust in the Lord, I can work with that as well. I don't want to badger you.

[mfbukowski]

Seeing that Calvinism is being discussed here now, please allow me to describe what I was taught and experienced growing up in a Calvinist family and church. The most important concept that was stressed was God's sovereignty, hand in hand with God's love. The first Bible verse I learned was "we love Him because He first loved us". The idea that God was in control and that nothing could happen without His knowledge or ultimate care was prevalent. Passages like Romans 8 ("If God is for us, who can be against us?") were often referenced. While I learned about predestination and the elect, this was always in the context of God's foreknowledge, and was balanced with "God is not willing that any should perish". I recall one minister describing predestination as an arch through which we pass. On the side as we enter we read " Whosoever believes and comes" , and on the other side looking back, we read "Foreordained, elected and chosen by God". (Although I could go on further, I'll stop here mainly because my computer is very frustrating and won't allow me to start a new paragraph! Too much text in one paragraph is not reader-friendly!!! Besides, I've given the main gist of what I wanted to communicate. Although Calvinism may seem harsh and unfair {I get that!!}, that was definitely not my experience in my Calvinist family and church.

I suppose it's not a problem as long as you are among the elect and you are sure God loves you. It is only a problem for all those nasty non-believers out there.