Where I Stand

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/about/c-michael-patton on 06 May 2008
Personal (Michael Patton) & Theology

Comments (107)

Related Posts

• Where I Stand
• Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up - Part 4 - Comparing Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Emergers
• The Baptism Debate on Converse with Scholars
• What are the Essentials for Christianity? A Test of Unity and Diversity
• Do you really believe in hell?

107 Responses to “Where I Stand”

1. bethyada on 06 May 2008 at 4:14 am #

   I am mildly amused as I was thinking of doing something similar to this during the day (not today, but was contemplating a post on this). Not that I thought of the point system which is good. Though I think a 5 point system would be easier. Here goes:

   Arminian (well at least anti-Calvinism) (6). It would be stronger because I think the Bible is much clearer on free will (in an Arminian sense), but I respect many scholars who are Calvinist.
   *Total depravity. Not certain (1), probably, but then God is reaching out to all and we can all respond to that.
   *Conditional election (6)
   *Universal atonement (8)
   *Prevenient grace (7)
   *Conditional salvation (8)

   Charismatic (9)

   Complementarian (6)

   Eschatology don’t know. I have sympathies with both futurism and preterism.

   Credobaptism (6)

   Inerrancy (9)

   Eternal hell (7), Current existence of Sheol/ Hades (9)

   Protestant (8)

   Homosexuality sinful (10)

   Soul traducism/creationism don’t know. Not even certain we inherit sin as opposed to become sinful. And before you label me seriously heretical, I am just saying I don’t know, haven’t looked into it enough.

   Dispensational/covenant don’t know. Bit of both. Have sympathies for the idea of an ongoing Israel and a future temple.

   Creationism (young earth) (9).

   Salvation: Christocentric (there must be a less loaded word) (5) over credocentric, but still strongly believe in the importance of orthodoxy.

2. Chris on 06 May 2008 at 4:32 am #

   ” I would not break fellowship with someone who disagrees with me. ”

   So then… If your pastor suddenly turned paedo-baptist, preaching paedo-baptism and baptising babies, and preaching everyone to do the same, you would have zero point zero inclination to go seeking another church?

3. Lisa R on 06 May 2008 at 4:38 am #

   “Jesus was a Republican (10):

   Oh yeah.”

   You must love to incite riots. And not to mention the fact that you list complementarianism twice after the forest fire you ignited last week. You know, the one you walked away from with only a couple of smoldering ashes. How do things REALLY go over there at the Patton household?

4. JoanieD on 06 May 2008 at 5:51 am #

   Thanks, Michael, for “putting it all out there.” I know my list would be different from yours, but I am still learning. I keep looking at the whole end of time scenario and get confused with the terms and choices. I do know that I am anti-Calvinist and I am an egalitarian though I am not living it. Sigh….

   I think the believer baptism makes sense biblically, though there is one place in Acts, I think, where a fellow wanted his whole household to be baptized. Some say that likely there were young children in that household that were baptized. The Catholic church baptizes babies and then says, I think, that this is a symbol of them becoming a part of the church and that the church will now support and assist that child in being a follower of Jesus. And then at Confirmation the child is now old enough to say for himself or herself whether he or she wants to be a follower of Jesus. So they try to have it “both ways.” I was baptized as a Catholic baby but then was again baptized as a teenager when I became a part of a non-denominational charismatic church. I guess I am covered!

   Joanie D.

5. richards on 06 May 2008 at 6:43 am #

   I was really hanging with you until I got to the part about U2 and found out you weren’t saved. I’m praying for you, Michael.

6. minnowspeaks on 06 May 2008 at 7:14 am #

   Not only did he list comlementarian twice they had different points attached. The closer he got to an angry wife the more convicted he became–from a 6 to a 10. Humm…

7. britphil on 06 May 2008 at 7:23 am #

   Lisa R

   “Jesus was a Republican (10):

   Oh yeah.”

   You must love to incite riots. And not to mention the fact that you list complementarianism twice after the forest fire you ignited last week. You know, the one you walked away from with only a couple of smoldering ashes. How do things REALLY go over there at the Patton household?”

   I am beginning to really relate to you. CMP certainly did walk away from the forest fire after igniting with just a few ashes. Do you guess he was the kind of teenager who would slyly start an argument amongst friends and then stand back and enjoy the fall out…you have to watch out for those kinds of guys you know!!

   Michael I will take it that you were being ironic and humourous on the Republican thing. My guess is that He would have had some trenchant things to say to all of us, but far more to those of a republican bent, of course!!!

   Joanie..this may please Michael no end - there are occasions where I feel it is possible to practice triple baptism - ie a child is baptised as an infant (1), comes to their own personal faith and asks to be baptised themselves (2) (Michael - do you set an barrier on believers baptism - I personally feel it can be done at a very young age say seven or eight in some cases depending on the understanding of the child, does this constitute paedo-believers baptism??)
   and the third baptism which could be argued for is Baptism in the Holy Spirit (3). I find great difficulty in Michael’s assertion that somehow the supernatural giftings all suddenly ceased at a certain point in time yet the other giftings have carried on in an unrestricted fashion. I am leading on our morning worship on Sunday which is Pentecost Sunday in the Anglican Church. Yes I do have a problem in allocating one Sunday a year to majoring on the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit, but I look forward to informing our folks that there the healings that they have experienced and witnessed in response to prayer and laying on of hands were not legitimate as the Holy Spirit does not operate in that way any more! To say that the biblical support for this stance is moderate is surely an exaggeration. It is virtually non-existant!

   Our own daughter was dedicated in our Anglican church despite attempts by our vicar to persuade us otherwise. We wanted Rebecca to make her own mind up so that she would not be prevented from having experiencing believers baptism because she had already been “baptised” as an infant. Our own church has a policy of dual baptism. There are children baptised as infants and a number who have underrgone believers baptism. On Easter Sunday the Archbishiop of York, John Sentamu, the second in command of the Anglican Church ,baptsied 27 young people and adults by full immersion and one infant by paedo baprism, all of which took place in the open air outside York Minster!

   Michael I greatly admire the fact that you are open to supernatural giftings, but when you say that have not experienced them is that because you have never asked God to move or operate in such a way.

   Just because you have are reluctant to ask or believe that God can move in such a way should He so wish to do so does not necessarily mean that the more supernatural gifts have ceased to exist. My guess is you have chosen to stay in your comfort zone a bit and “live, move and have your being worshipping alongide those who believe God operates in a similar way to yourself.
   Have you never prayed or asked God for anyone to be healed anytime that you were pastoring alongside Chuck Swindell? Isn’t all answer to prayer miraculous and supernatural or is this part of the Calvinist mindset. Ie God has predetermined the outcome so we don’t pray for healing!!??

   One discrepancy I did spot though Michael. “When you say that Homosexuality is a Sin” do you mean practice or orientation. There is a world of difference between homosexual orientation and practice. It is essential that you differentiate between the two. I would never critice anyone who has a homosexualorientation but does not practice it out of a deep love for Christ. Such people need tremendous support, encouragement and prayer. I am not sure they would sit comfortably amongst a congregation led by someone with a 9 to their name on this matter, not unless they were willing to spend the entirety of their Christian life suffering in silence. Before being so absoutely sure please could you be a bit clearer about what you mean by “Homosexuality”

   Also I would be a bit happier if you were a bit less Roman Catholic/Orthodox in your approach to the grading of sinfulness. I do not see you stating how much you view pride, arrogance, envy and hypocrisy on the things that are just as sinful appearing on your radar, especially as they certainly seemd to register high on Jesus’ target list!
   I didn’t have you down as a venal/mortal sin man!

   “Also, it is important to note that most of these issues are non-essentials, meaning that I would not break fellowship with someone who disagrees with me. Everyone has the right to be wrong, don’t they?”

   I agree fully on agreeing on the things that unite us. It would be wrong just to break fellowship with you because you are in the wrong…so I won’t!! Sorry…I just could not resist it!!

8. britphil on 06 May 2008 at 7:43 am #

   Also I will post further on this new post-modern set of 10 commandments once I have got my head around the word “infralapsarian”

   Is that word actually in the English language Michael, or have you made it up for the purposes of this debate?!

   If I am one I am not sure I would want to be known as one!!

9. Truth Unites... and Divides on 06 May 2008 at 7:47 am #

   CMP: “Thanks for listening.”

   Thanks for sharing! It would be kewl and perhaps helpful if Dan Wallace, Rob Bowman Jr., Paul Copan, and Ruth Tucker shared their doctrinal convictions too, if they so choose.

10. britphil on 06 May 2008 at 8:16 am #

    Minnowspeaks has suggested that I transfer these comments onto the “Where I Stand” thread as she kindly suggested that they were worth a read and might be missed on the “Bent of a Woman” post which has probably now virtually run its course.

    So…take a long (very long!), deep breath and read on. It is not as neatly categorised as Michael’s list is but it may give you a flavour of where I stand!

    It has been a couple of days since I last posted, largely due to the fact that it has been a Bank Holiday weekend here in the UK (one of two Bank Holiday weekends we enjoy UK side during the month of May).

    It was probably good that I had a couple of days breathing space, as after my last post I found myself getting unusually very angry. I am generally a fairly phlegmatic and level headed sort of guy, with fairly broad shoulders and a reasonably good sense of humour.

    But I have to say that after I had posted a comment in response to CMP’s comment on “complimentarians valuing women more than egalitarians” I was actually quite livid. Partly because I thought, and still do, that it was an outrageous statement to make, and partly because of my despair over the convenient use (or more accurately) misuse of labels to try and categorise people, especially those who may disagree with our point of view, as it seems to be the only way we can seem to control, manage or understand them.

    I would like to see a redefining of the terms “complimentarian” and egalitarian”. The reason I state this is that I feel that those who pride themselves on being complimentarian, are, when you strip it down to its essence, at best merely “partial complimentarians”. They believe in the complimentary roles of men and women, but appear to have very little of a constructive nature to say or offer on the complimentary ministries of men and women. Moreover, when they do venture their opinion, it is usually in a very negative sense, ie what women are not allowed to do in church (the oppressingly sad lists provided for us in Wayne Grudem’s study on the subject are typical of this – ie this is what women cannot/should not/must never do in church) ,rather than a positive affirmation of the ministries and roles women are able, gifted, anointed and empowered by God’s Spirit to fulfil.

    It appeared to me that looking at Grudem’s lists (yes,.it is staggering to think that this man actually compiled three separate lists ..outlining in painstaking detail what women must not be allowed to do…research carried out with the aid of several female contributors I assume (not!!). I would contend that complimetarians in the fullest sense are those of us with a more egalitarian bent, who firmly believe and are convinced of the importance of complimentary roles for men and women and complimentary ministries for men and women which result in complimentary and balanced leadership teams.

    And then I had to ask myself…why are you so angry Phil? What is it that is causing you to react like this? And after careful reflection Michael I should really be thanking you for two reasons. First, to thank you for ensuring that I never end up taking up the complimentarian cause…and secondly to be eternally grateful that I have never been exposed either in my youth or early adulthood to extensive Calvinist teaching, as I am so thankful that I am not a Calvinist and could never envisage myself becoming one, or encouraging anyone else to seriously adhere to Calvinist doctrines.

    The reason for this is, that as I reflected, I realised that it is hard enough having to struggle against the arguments of the secular world, after all you expect to do so because it is part and parcel of the territory of being a Christian. But to have to constantly battle against the wrongs inflicted upon people by fellow Christians is a bitter pill to have to frequently swallow.

    And then I began to ask myself…just what benefits has strict adherence to Calvinist doctrine brought to the Christian church? And I was struggling to think of any!!. I then heard the cries of the Calvinist posters on this site What about “Sola Scriptura” amongst other things. And then I reminded myself of the insidious policies developed from Scripture by the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, where apartheid was developed and justified by stating that this was the will of God as clearly stated in the divinely inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God! And not only that, those of a more “reasonable” Calvinist persuasion, who though maybe uncomfortable with the apartheid doctrine, still encouraged fellow Calvinists to tacitly support it and justify it under the guise of the government being the agent of God whose will should never be challenged! As a result thousands upon thousands of black Christians were subjected to the most humiliating and degrading treatment, backed up by the cry “Sola Scriptura” And who was it who actively became involved in the campaign to overturn the evil of apartheid – the complimenarian Calvinists or the egalitarian Arminians?

    And then I heard a statistic on Saturday morning as I went around Liverpool, on the Slavery Walk which sent a shiver down my spine. Up until as recently as 1957, if a white man in the state of Alabama saw a black man and a black woman coming towards him, the white man was legally entitled to take the black woman away from the black man and rape her without any fear of prosecution…and they did so…frequently! General Eisenhower ensured that this was made an offence in 1957, although it still continued to happen, at least it was actually illegal. I guess that many of the Southern Baptist church leaders and members hiding under the white hoods and cloaks of the Klu Klux Klan (because let’s face it, that is who many of them were!) believed firmly in Sola Scriptura whilst carrying out the most cowardly of atrocities, often against people who were far more committed Christians than they ever were. Who were the Christians taking part in the civil disobedience movement to try and bring an end to the horrific treatment of black women in Alabama in particular and racial segregation in general? Was it the complimentary Calvinists, those people who allegedly “value the role of women“ so much, or was it the egalitarian Arminians, who allegedly value the roles of women less?

    And then I come much closer home to the country of Northern Ireland, but also to my own city of Liverpool and also the city of Glasgow in Scotland. Both of these mainland British cities have been affected by this owing to the large numbers of Irish emigrants who have settled in Liverpool and Glasgow. The Calvinist influenced Protestant Orange Order has resulted in deep sectarian hatred between Protestant and Roman Catholics down the ages. Many of these Calvinists insist they are redeemed and saved by the blood of the Lamb yet spew forth some of the most vitriolic hatred I have ever had the misfortune to witness. The previous Anglican Bishop of Liverpool and the previous Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool worked tirelessly together over 20 years to try and break down the hatred and division, and anyone who supported them as they sought to be peacemakers was vilified as doing the devil’s work.

    Why is it, I ask myself, that those of a more “Arminian egalitarian” nature have ended up spending so much time trying to bring to an end the tyranny wreaked upon an unsuspecting world and an undeserving church by adherents of a more Calvinist persuasion? Why do I hear so little regret or sorrow amongst Calvinists on this site for the above things carried out by followers of the tenet “Sola Scriptura”. What exactly is the content of modern Church History modules in Calvinist seminaries? Is it actually taught at all? Does it deal with events “warts and all” or is a far more sanitised version taught to college students?

    In the UK in recent years, UK church leaders have offered public repentance for the role the church had in the growth and the development of the slave trade. There have also been discussions centred around providing financial recompense to descendants of those who suffered greatly at the hands of slave owners. I do not sense a similar contrite spirit amongst many Calvinists. Not to say that this is easy. Even in my own city there was a public outcry when an attempt was made by the local city council to change the names of streets and road names which had previously named in honour of those who became extremely rich through the proceeds of the slave trade.

    I try to ensure that my posts contain at least some lighter touches, but I am afraid this one is pretty serious, because I believe it deals with serious issues. The excuse that “you can’t blame Calvinism when church people screws things up” is simply not good enough and does not wash! It does matter…It matters immensely!! People here argue that this is too idealistic but all of the above movements were so clearly not christian yet where did the challenge to the far from ideal practices, including treatment of women come from. The complimenatrians (even the modest ones - such as the angle that CMP comes from appear to have remained utterly silent), or the egalitarians, you know, those of us who in CMP’s honest opinion do not view the role of women highly enough? The reason why I think CMP’s statement is so outrageous is that there is hardly a scrap of church history or positive complimenatrian practice that can be used to back up his claim.

    I think the first thing I am going to do when I get to heaven is to go and find Arminius and give him a huge, warm embrace, to make up for the lack of them that he received when he was on earth!! And I will ask him a couple of questions – such as, just where did you summon up the courage from to challenge and oppose some of the teachings of John Calvin, and what made you do it? And then I will go and root out John Calvin (if I can find him), and ask him “Did you really mean for future followers and adherents of your teachings to screw up so badly and just how did they manage to get it so badly wrong and interpret your teachings to justify appropriating all kinds of evil in God’s name? Were you holding your heavenly head in your heavenly hands in divine despair…or….was it what you intended all along??

    Long live the egalitarians, the true complimentarians, both in word and deed!

    britphil on 06 May 2008 at 4:28 am #

    Given that this is the 167th post on this subject (I guess this must be the P&P record!) it looks as though you have set a bit of a hare running here Michael!

    What also bothers me somewhat is why do I get the feeling that I am somehow being a traitor to the male cause on this site! It would appear with a couple of notable exceptions that I am one of the few guys willing to risk taking up the egalitarian (or “fully complimentarian” as I shall now rebrand it!) cause?

    “This thread actually makes me laugh. When we are dealing with other aspects of theology there are very few women posting. Many of those same women are here on this thread and I commend their consistancy to actually “sit at the same table with the rest of us”.

    The part that is so sad is how many ‘new’ names I see in this thread. (simply meaning names I’ve not seen on other threads recently here at P&P). Do women only come out ‘en masse’ when this topic comes up and choose to watch from the sidelines on other issues?”

    Jason J. I feel that this is a cheap shot and it was a post about which I was unsure whether to laugh or cry!!! Have you ever wondered why so few women post? Maybe it is because of attitudes such as this which are also rife in the church as well as appearing on this site. The great thing about the female contibutors to this thread is that we are hearing their voice (yes..they do have one!) and their point of view, (yes they do have them!) rather than what we blokes think their point of view is or should be!! I cannot think of a worse nightmare than having a thread like this where all the contributions were from a male perspective.
    Should it not even be expected that on a thread entitled “the bent of a woman that we should expect women to get just a tad worked up and excited about issues raised by men about them and to come out “en masse” as a result? I am just surprised that there aren’t many more women replying to this thread!

    Also I take issue with your point that women do not participate in other aspects of theology on this site. I have only been on this site for a few weeks but I have recently observed a marked increase in the number of female contributors who have some very perceptive and valuable contributions to make to the debate. If only there were many more!

    Michael..one final question…this has been bugging me a bit over the last couple of days. How many female students pass through the doors of the seminary where you teach? Of those that do, given the difference in roles that you expect men and women to fulfil once they have graduated, is the level of training they receive different. For example, if thay are not encouraged to teach or lead, preach or lead worship, surely the level of training offered cannot the same as the training offered to the male students. Or are there separate courses offered whose entry is defined by gender?
    In essence, if you accept female students i your seminary, what type of future ministry, if any, are you equipping them for exactly?

    You may have guessed that on many issues we may think be on the same ship drinking different flavours of soda, but on this issue we are well truly on translantic liners sailing in completely different directions. In fact I confess to being slightly saddened as I thought I had discovered a Calviniast theologian who was willing to challenge (albeit gently and irenically) some of the widely accepted funadamental tenets of Calvinism. On the gender issue I am disappointed to find you more in the traditionalist Calvinist camp than I anticipated, and firmly entrenched there given strongly held opinions on the issue that you have stated.

    britphil on 06 May 2008 at 5:06 am #

    Michael..you’ve really got me thinking now…maybe that was your intention all along!!

    How would you advise your students, (the males ones at least), when they go into the real world of church leadership, to pastor and guide the newly converted women who have come to faith but have joined a church the church with a more post-modern mindset? ie they may be involved at quite a high leadership level and are used to important decision making in their secular working environment.

    Will they comfortably find a home in a church with a partial complimentarian bias? Will they be allowed to be who they are, or will they be required to conform and be “retrained” into a more complimentarian mindset..and how quickly must this transformation take place?

    Or will they eventually find they either give up on Christianity altogether..and quite quickly at that, or just try and find a more fully complimentarian church fellowship at which they feel they can more comfortably belong, really feel at home and where they can be encouraged to be who they are and fulfil all that God intends them to be in the future?

    That’s the end folks…for now. Thanks Minnowspeaks, I am about to press “Send” …now!!

11. Dr Mike on 06 May 2008 at 8:19 am #

    Since many of the issues you have discussed warrant serious and sustained reflection - not to mention study - I am choosing to address only the most serious and theologically significant:

    U2 as a “10.”

    You have a viable argument for Bono, the Edge, and who-are-those-other-guys? being the most popular group, but they are hardly deserving of the appellation, “U2 is the best band that ever was, is, or ever will be.” That can only be given to The Beatles, who changed popular music forever.

    You are clearly too young to remember pop music prior to Sgt. Pepper: it was encapsulated in the American Bandstand mantra, “It had a good beat and was easy to dance to: I give it a 85.” The Beatles transformed uncoordinated, adolescent white boys from dancing spectacles/ethnic embarrassments/fools into cool guys who could sit and listen to music without shame. Prior to The Beatles, nobody bought pop music just to listen to it: it was purchased to dance to. The Beatles thankfully put an end to that.

    Without The Beatles, you and I would be lining up to see Annette Funicello and Frankie Avalon in “Beach Blanket Bingo XLVII.” But instead we followed The Beatles lead and went down the path leading to “Woodstock,” “Easy Rider,” and “Rocky Horror.” I’m sure you’re beginning to agree with me by now.

    Again, U2 is a great band - I have more than a few of their CDs - but they did not revolutionize their industry or impact culture like John, Paul, George and Ringo. So your “10″ rating is a paean to your youthful ignorance: only The Beatles and Bo Derek get 10s. And Bob Dylan. And Led Zeppelin. Pink Floyd. Jimi Hendrix. The Who.

    U2? “They have a good beat and they’re easy to dance to. I’ll give ‘em a 9.”

12. Jugulum on 06 May 2008 at 8:31 am #

    CMP wrote,

    I believe that believers alone should be baptized. This means that I don’t not believe in padeo-baptism (infant baptism).

    You don’t not believe in paedo-baptism? Goodness!

    A 10 is reserved for those which I believe the Scripture leaves no room for honest debate
    [...]
    U2 is the best band that ever was, is, or ever will be (10):

    Let me guess… There’s some sort of Bible Code involved?

13. Mitch on 06 May 2008 at 8:39 am #

    Michael

    You know where I’m coming from, and I’m far from either Calvinism or Arminianism, both of which were Calvinistic.

    Your rating Limited Atonement as a 1 to me is academic dishonesty. To do so, IMO, is to first commit to a theological system, and then, interpret passages in light of this system. Why not accept the obvious, and reconstruct a theological system from this? We are not limited to Calvinism or Arminianism. You don’t have to jump off the Calvinistic train onto an Arminian train. There are 1,000s of other possibilities. This is one of the main faults I have with Bible Colleges and Seminaries. You learn theological systems and then choose the one you best fit in… and then of course you learn to defend it. Look at your numbers for your TULIP. Can’t you see something is wrong? Don’t hold on to any theological system until something better comes along. This is the reason young kids have a hard time wanting to learn the Bible. So many people who have given years of their lives to study are not sure of what they believe. Why would I want to put the time and effort you, Michael, have put in, only to arrive at your conviction level? It almost is a crap shoot.

    Here’s something you can do to help clarify your numbers above. Choose the opposite position and number those. For example, rate yourself on non-cessationism. Rate yourself on errancy? etc.

    I’d be curious to see how you think through this list.

    On your soft-cessationism. Don’t confuse a PERSON WITH THE GIFT with the MIRACLE. We all know Benny Hinn is a sham. He’s a fake. No PERSON has the gift of healing, but God can still HEAL today.

    On Pre-Trib. When Christ “returns” he tells us it will be as in the days of Noah; they will be marrying and giving in marriage. In other words, things will be fairly normal based on the current surroundings. Does that sound like the Second Coming to you? At the end of the Tribulation, are people pretty much going about their normal activities as in the days of Noah?

14. Jugulum on 06 May 2008 at 8:48 am #

    Mitch, would it be fair to say that you’re interpreting a “1″ as meaning “I’m unsure of this doctrine”?

15. britphil on 06 May 2008 at 8:52 am #

    Mitch

    Something on which you and I are in total agreement for a change!

    I too have something of an aversion to attending theological college/seminary, despite many attempts to persuade me otherwise because it seems as though they are designed to teach..or even push/advocate/promote certain theological systems and woe betide you if you happen to dissent or disagree!

    Why, and who decrees, that we have to conform to man- made theological systems and then be judged and assessed upon where we stand by people who have either created those systems themselves (always good for the ego for a professional theologian to devise or redefine a new theological system), and then go on to judge, assess and critique the rest of us as if we are somehow duty bound to fit into one of these neat theological categories.

    In reality, it may astound many theolgians to discover that we are not under any obligation to fit into these structures at all, and neither do we wish to! This is probably why so many ordinary, sane Christians prefer to simply get on with their lives and live it out!

    I also agree with your stance on academic dishonesty. For me it would appear, that if he rates that CMP is in Limited Atonement as a one then he basically does not believe in it at all..and is in reality a four point Calvinist but is maybe afraid to openly come out as such, as the only real true Calvinists are considered to be the five point variety. How you possibly can give yourself a 1 for one of the key tenets and then still consider yourself a 5 point Calvinist is absolutely beyond me!

    The second reason why I am so averse to attending theological college is that I look around me and see some of the end products that they churn out and foist upon the church..with a “we’ve done (or more accurately half-done) our job and now it’s over to you guys to live under and financially support their ministry(ies)” attitude.

16. singer saved by grace on 06 May 2008 at 9:42 am #

    Britphil, thank you, thank you, thank you for your most excellent post! I feel you’ve collected so many of my thoughts and expressed them so well. I look forward to your contributions on this site.

17. dac on 06 May 2008 at 9:56 am #

    to quote cmp

    A “1? means that while I am convicted of the truthfulness of the doctrine, my conviction level is as low as it could be. This does not mean that I am unsure of something, just that I am less-sure of it than I could be.

    A “10? represents a very high conviction level (as high as it possible for a non-divine being!). (Please understand that I very rarely give a 10 to an issue. A 10 is reserved for those which I believe the Scripture leaves no room for honest debate such as the physical resurrection of Christ, Christ deity, that Christ is coming back, etc.)

    To give a 1 to limited atonement is to be biblically honest as to the level of scriptural support for a concept

    Labels are both limiting but also helpful. Yes, they can give you rose color glasses - tinting your perception. But they also give some shorthand understanding of where an individual stands on some important issues - for example when CMP calls himself a Reformed Protestant - that is a helpful label that lets others understand his beliefs, without having to go to a more complete explanation every time.

18. britphil on 06 May 2008 at 10:03 am #

    “To give a 1 to limited atonement is to be biblically honest as to the level of scriptural support for a concept”

    Maybe I am being a tad too logical and pedantic for my own good here, but if you are going to put yourself “out there” with your stance I feel it is within reason to question the positioning .

    To give yourself a 1, whicb by CMP’S definition is the amount of scriptural support for a concept, then surely it must be assumed that the concept is 90% biblically inaccurate/unsupported and not able to be backed up by Scripture and therefore cannot be supported by those who place such a strong emphasis on Scripture. If as Michael says he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture how can he hold to a position which has a 90% chance of being errant? So how can you still be a five point Calvinist? I still don’t understand?!

    “I am a five-point Calvinist and don’t take shame in calling myself such.”

    For me, if I was going to state with all honesty that I am a fully signed up, card-carrying five point Calvinist I would want to be sure that I scored at the very least six out of ten in all five categories! To state that you are a 1 support in Limited Atonement (a stance which I fully share, although I would be far closer to zero than one!) and then say that you have no shame in calling yourself a five point Calvinist appears to me pretty contradictory.

    Are you absolutely sure Michael that you are a five point card carrrying Calvinist? I think you must be more like a four pointer surely?

19. C Michael Patton on 06 May 2008 at 10:26 am #

    brit, concerning limited atonement: I know that the 1-10 model may suggest this, but this is not at all what I mean to communicate. If something is a 1 in my scheme, this means that it is compelling, but not as compelling as it could be. If I were to communicate that it was 90% inaccurate, I would have had it at a -9. I go through this in my Introduction to Theology course. Anyway, it is just a scheme that I use.

    There are many things I am a 1 on. I tell people that if you are a 1 on something you are still obligated to teach it with a level of conviction.

    Another example that might help is concerning the age of the earth, young or old. I am a 0. I am uncompelled in either direction.

20. C Michael Patton on 06 May 2008 at 10:45 am #

    A couple of more I would have added to the list:

    Young Earth/Old Earth-0

    Destiny of the unevangelized-Restrictivist-4

21. britphil on 06 May 2008 at 10:48 am #

    “There are many things I am a 1 on. I tell people that if you are a 1 on something you are still obligated to teach it with a level of conviction.”

    Michael..you have got me intrigued now! I would love to sit in on one of your lectures on “Limited Atonement” and compare it with one of your lectures on “Complementarianism”?
    for example?

    Would I be able to tell the “level of conviction” which you hold to a particular aspect of Calvinist doctrine I wonder, by the manner in which you teach it, would it be possible to discern which aspects you find less compelling than others, would you be open to being questioned/challenged on those aspects which you find least compelling ie ranked say 1 through to 3 or would it not be possible to notice much of a difference?

    Nothing with a one rating can surely be defined as anywhere near compelling can it? If that is what you are trying to communicate, do you not think it might be wiser to think up a system for defining what you believe which would stand up more robustly to close scrutiny?

    In case you do not hear from me for a while, you will be more than relieved that I have to go now and it will probably be tomorrow before I am back again! By which time I expect the P&P exchanges will be well and truly buzzing!

22. Mitch on 06 May 2008 at 11:24 am #

    Michael:

    There seems to be some ambiguity here in your system. I give you that. I do have this suggestion in the spirit of removing unnecessary ambiguity.

    You wrote:
    As well, I am an infralapsarian Calvinist which means that I believe that God decreed to permit the fall before electing people.

    It seems to me you should use terms that don’t create fog. Since many non-Calvinists do not believe “Election” is related to Salvation, I would recommend the following clarification to your statement:

    As well, I am an infralapsarian Calvinist which means that I believe that God decreed to permit the fall before electing people TO SALVATION.

    To many non-Calvinists, we include in our view of Election that God elected the nation of Israel in the OT, but not ALL Jews were saved. Within the nation of Israel, there were elect unbelievers. If one uses a one-size-fits-all definition of Election, this sounds contradictory.

    Same with Christ’s disciples. “Have not I elected/chosen you 12, and one of you is the devil.” Judas would have been one of the elect, but certainly not saved. Again, non-Calvinists inculcate this into their overall understanding of Election: it can be used of unsaved people as well as saved.

    Anyway, it’s just a thought. I am just as guilty of using ambiguity. Hopefully, iron does sharpen iron.

23. Ben on 06 May 2008 at 11:33 am #

    Interesting post Michael… although I don’t know how you can be anywhere near a 10 on anything (apart from the U2 thing)! It might just be because I’m more post-modern than you… or because I’ve gone through the theology programme . But here’s where I am:

    Calvinism (-2):
    Total depravity (0): Aren’t sure either way.
    Unconditional election (0): Aren’t sure either way.
    Limited atonement (-8): I could only see someone believing this for philosophical reasons to stay consistent with the rest of the points. I don’t see it explicitly stated in Scripture.
    Irresistible grace (-1): I can’t see this clearly stated in Scripture though it seems you could interpret certain passages this way, though I don’t believe it.
    Perseverance of the Saints (-6): Depends who you define as ’saved’ since salvation is a process that extends till when we die rather than a single moment in the believers past. Though I believe people can and do walk away, and were once ‘true’ believers.

    Soft-Cessationist (-2): I’m Charismatic… I just don’t think our ‘charismatic’ is quite the same as the apostles ‘charismatic’.
    Complementarian (-1): I’m of the Egalitarian persuasion, but I can see where complementarians are coming from.
    Premillennial (4): Jesus is coming… look busy!
    Pretribulational (0.0001): I believe it… I just don’t know why?
    U2 is the best band that ever was, is, or ever will be (1): Ha!
    Believer Baptism (3): Not looked into this enough.
    Inerrancy (5): Aslong as it’s rational inerrancy.
    Eternal Hell (3): I try not to think about this one… hence I don’t tend to look into it!
    Jesus was a Republican (?): I’m from England… speak English!
    Reformed Protestant (2): I wish we could have stayed Catholic and just reformed our doctrines and practices from within… though that’s partly not our fault. I’m also offended by the history that shortly followed the reformers and their followers, not the best Christian witness to the world.
    Homosexuality is Sin (6): I believe it, it just makes me uneasy to talk about it… I feel kinda unloving and arrogant to argue it with someone.
    Traducian (?): I have no idea what I believe about this.
    Dispensationalist (?): Very good arguments both sides, I don’t take sides with this one.

24. Jugulum on 06 May 2008 at 12:13 pm #

    Ben said,

    Limited atonement (-8): I could only see someone believing this for philosophical reasons to stay consistent with the rest of the points. I don’t see it explicitly stated in Scripture.

    Ben,

    The arguments aren’t only logical, seeking consistency. There is also the argument from John 10:

    “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.” (v. 14-15)
    “but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.” (v. 26b)

    I’m not saying you should see that as the slam-dunk that shuts down all disagreement. Evaluating limited vs. unlimited requires more. But I’m saying that, at least arguably, this passage teaches that Christ died for his sheep specifically.

25. dac on 06 May 2008 at 12:21 pm #

    perhaps to get us on track….

    The point of this post is to give us some knowledge of CMP, not to generate discussion (or argument) over the various views. And, likewise, to get us to think about our own views, and to install some honesty into our views of scripture.

    Really, this post to me gets back to the issue of using an irenic theology - not to fight out/defend any of CMP’s theology

    I know this is not common for most blogs, but it is the concept here.

26. Susan on 06 May 2008 at 12:39 pm #

    Brit, wow, what happened? A couple of weeks ago I recall you said something like: “I’m going to take a long nap now…. imagining myself becoming somewhat Calvinistic…”…. and now this (above)!??

    As I stated before I think that Calvin expressed what I see in scripture for the most part, but I would rather been known as a Christian than a Calvinist any day (i.e. the later title isn’t important to me). Never-the-less, I started to feel almost offended that you would lump me, and Calvinists in general, in with all of the above-named atrocities. It’s almost like saying that because I’m a white American I bear the shame of slavery.

    As to the equalitarian/complementarian debate (as it turned out to be)(!!!) I will say that I do appreciate your great compassion, and understanding, and valuing of women. I have at times sensed that the voice of a man is at times more heard and respected than the voice of a woman, in the church (and out). I respect that this would not be true of you. You are right-on in that! Women are gifted with speaking gifts, as are men. If you have not yet done so I would still highly recommend that you take a look at Dan Wallace’s two part article called Biblical Gynecology at bible.org (look under “author name”)… it’s at the top of his listed articles. This will give you a perspective on this issue (from a Calvinist) which I think will not be quite so offensive to you. In fact, I think you will be comforted by Dan’s obvious high view of women participating in the church, and his perspective of the issue from a seminary professor’s point of view. He advocates taking a moderate position on this issue. Personally I appreciated his sensitivity.

    By the way, that was quite a purge form you. Did you feel better after that? I hope I have not said anything to offend you…. (former posts included).

27. Vance on 06 May 2008 at 12:54 pm #

    Michael, I love that “0″ on Old Earth/Young Earth! Too bad we can’t get others to be so non-committal! :0)

28. Cadis on 06 May 2008 at 2:11 pm #

    I crunched the numbers.

    Taking out the 3 false positives and averaging the remainder it comes to 6.

    Divide this by the number of a man ( , can’t leave that out of the equation)

    This comes to … 0.009

    numbers don’t lie, how serious can we really take this guy?

29. scott gray on 06 May 2008 at 3:03 pm #

    jesus was a republican 10.

    !!!

    jesus’ native language was english 10.

    jesus would have felt that all my excuses for not living my life as he asked me to were exactly the same excuses he would have come up with if he’d had the same problems i do 10.

    jesus, if he were a member of the senate, would have voted for bottomless funding for the victims of hurricane katrina to get their lives in some kind of acceptable order 10.

    

30. Berny on 06 May 2008 at 3:13 pm #

    Britphil,

    You demonstrate a remarkable ignorance of Calvinism. I suggest you spend a couple of years reading up on Calvinistic literature before you foray into a public discussion on this topic again.

31. scott gray on 06 May 2008 at 3:24 pm #

    berny–

    why so tough on poor old britphil? dilitantism is a great way to join the deep end of the pool on these issues.

    better if you asked him the right questions to reach new understandings.

    imagine jesus saying, ‘peter, you demonstrate a remarkable ignorance of my prophetic mission here on earth. i suggest you spend a couple of years reading up on prophetic literature before you foray into a public discussion on this topic again.

    lighten up!

    ask good questions!

    peace–

    scott

32. Berny on 06 May 2008 at 3:42 pm #

    Scott, you asked me a question. Why not wait for my reply before going off on a rant?

    To be a dabbler is quite all right. I’m under no illusion that the majority of Christians are intellectuals. I don’t expect this to change.

    The problem comes when those with little to no understanding on an issue speak as though they have understanding. Again, an honest question or an attitude that exudes a desire to learn is a positive thing. But you’re naive if you think this is always the case. Unfortunately, many feel they’re ready to be presenting their views when they should be studying and learning first.

    Britphil’s comment in the other thread about supralapsarian being nonsense betrays a profound ignorance of sophisticated theological matters. Would she say that to Alvin Plantinga?

    It speaks of serious intellectual laziness as well as a lack of integrity to carry that kind of a tone and say those kinds of things without having a knowledge of the subject at hand.

33. Berny on 06 May 2008 at 3:43 pm #

    “She” is supposed to be “he.”

34. scott gray on 06 May 2008 at 3:54 pm #

    berny–

    what questions might you have asked britphil that would have led to a more profound understanding of calvinism?

    scott

35. Cadis on 06 May 2008 at 3:54 pm #

    doooh,

    I need to make a correction to my previous post # 28
    Just when I said numbers don’t lie, and think I have it figured out, I have to admit there may be a flaw in the calculations. Just so Dan Wallace knows I was paying attention. Still even if the number of man turns out to be 616, it still not a very good bottom line for Michael.

    I’m dividing by the number of a man vs. the number of woman, just so noone thinks I’m calling Michael an anti-christ

36. Jugulum on 06 May 2008 at 4:12 pm #

    comment deleted by author

37. dac on 06 May 2008 at 5:08 pm #

    Berny,

    I was going to repost you original comment, substituting “Irenic Theology” for Calvinism, but then I decided that would be intemperate.

    Believe it or not, the the goal at RCM is one of Irenic Theology - which is a novel concept on the wild and woolly web, but yet there it is.

    Welcome to the comment section at RCM

    David

38. Ruth Tucker on 06 May 2008 at 5:18 pm #

    I don’t go in for numbers like you do, Michael, except that I’m a 10, no doubt about it.

    I’m more descriptive in setting forth my beliefs: fundamentalist, feminist, evolutionary, semi-Sabbatarian, anti-double-predestinarian, creationist. How’s that?

39. Chris Triplet on 06 May 2008 at 6:35 pm #

    Calvinism (9):
    Total depravity (9):
    Unconditional election (9):
    Limited atonement (9):
    Irresistible grace (9):
    Perseverance of the Saints (-9):

    Continuist (10) I’ve seen things that I know was God.
    I’ve seen God’s power flood a room. I don’t know how
    to describe it. It looked like electrified water if that makes
    any sense. It was a blue vapor but more than that.
    My pastor in Louisiana saw an amputee grow a new arm
    in a tent revival back in the 50’s. I see no scriptural support
    for the idea that God worked miracles to authenticate the
    message and then yanked up His miracle power after we
    had a book to read. If the Apostles needed miracles to
    authenticate their message, we do to. Just what the
    Christopher Hitchens of the world needs.

    Complementarian (9): I haven’t spent much time on this but I do know the trend of our society toward feminism has basically helped to contribute to the ruin of the family.
    It’s not pc but hey, “No female preachers!”

    Amillennial (10): Jesus is coming but not in my lifetime and
    not yours either so get used to the idea. I see no scriptural
    support for the bar code stamping world leader found in the
    theology of Hal Lindsey and the Left Behind writers. It’s
    a real joke. I believed this my entire life and one day woke
    up and realized this stuff is totally unscriptural and has no
    support in scripture. I don’t believe the church will take
    over the world or we should be trying to pursue a theonomy.

    Orthodox Preterism (10) Glad I discovered it.

    Pretribulational (-1): See above info

    U2 is the best band that ever was, is, or ever will be (8):
    I like their music but not their politics or the ONE.org scam.
    We’ve given almost a trillion dollars to Africa since LBJ was
    President and it’s been a real waste of money. I’m sure
    the dictators appreciated the money. I saw Jon Stossel
    interview some former African government officials say the
    money never and I mean never gets to the people.
    They need capitalism and democracy.

    Believer Baptism (9): Open to infant Baptism.
    Still learning about infant Baptism.

    Inerrancy (9): Reasoned Inerrancy like M. Patton

    Eternal Hell (10): All the NDE experiences of Hell I’ve
    read seem to indicate a very dark place where you
    are tortured mentally and some form of spiritual
    torture through isolation and from fellow human
    spirits sharing the place with you. It actually sounds
    worse than fire or brimstone from what I’ve read.
    Scripturally, yes, Hell is real and it also bears witness
    to glory and justice of God. I wish there wasn’t a Hell
    but I’m not the creator.

    Jesus was a Republican (10): Funny, I had to say ten.

    Reformed Protestant (10): Still open to learning from
    Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox crowd and non
    Reformed people.

    Homosexuality is Sin (10): It is a sin but not the unpardonable sin as we in south make it to be.

    Traducian (?): Haven’t studied this. Don’t know yet.

    Dispensationalist (-10): All invented by John Nelson Darby
    and C.I. Scofield. A weird fluke I wish would go away and hopefully it will as more people embrace the reformed
    point of view on scripture.

40. Chris on 06 May 2008 at 7:11 pm #

    “Also I would be a bit happier if you were a bit less Roman Catholic/Orthodox in your approach to the grading of sinfulness. ”

    Orthodox do not grade sins.

41. C Michael Patton on 06 May 2008 at 7:52 pm #

    Wow Chris, too many 10s for me to take you too seriously

42. Lisa R on 06 May 2008 at 9:17 pm #

    “The point of this post is to give us some knowledge of CMP, not to generate discussion (or argument) over the various views. And, likewise, to get us to think about our own views, and to install some honesty into our views of scripture.”

    In thinking about our views that we espouse, I think its more important to understand why we support the views we espouse and the labels we’ll pin on our chests. Do we let the labels define our exegesis or our exegesis define our labels? Now, I think the labels are important because they succintly encapsulate our positions on what we believe scriptures say, as I believe someone else here commented.

    But more importantly, I think it would behoove us to continually examine scripture and examine honestly and let that inform our positions. And not dogmatically cleave to labels to the extent that we flat out reject opposing views simply because it has the “wrong” label. I for one, strive to understand the genesis, development and theory of positions that I do not agree with. Learning is a life long process.

    So some of the areas that I come out strong on include:

    Calvanistic (still wrestling with limited atonement…not convinced)
    Believers baptism
    Complementarian
    Eternal hell
    Homosexuality being a sin

    I also think a continued self-reflection into the role our experiences, observations, traditions, personality and personal preferences play into our determining what label fits our theology is crucial. Because they will play a role and my observation of some comments I’ve run across suggests a great difficulty on the part of some, to divorce these factors from an objective consideration of what the whole counsel of scripture is saying on a particular topic.

    And Brit, just so you know, I will be attending the seminary where Michael went, starting this fall for the same program. And the seminary very much holds to a complementarian viewpoint. My expectations are that God will use me mightily. The sky is the limited!

43. Mitch on 06 May 2008 at 9:19 pm #

    “Continuist (10) I’ve seen things that I know was God. I’ve seen God’s power flood a room.”

    Now here’s someone who has a grasp of the issues

44. Scooter on 06 May 2008 at 9:26 pm #

    Ruth - a feminist and fundamentalist? What would Bob Jones say to such a thing?

45. SRH on 06 May 2008 at 9:59 pm #

    Chris Triplet…a -9 on perseverance? how come?

    other than that, i’m with you on every point, except

    baptism…i’m paedo (10) and credo (10) if they came to Christ later in life.

    Postmillennial (8)

    creationism (5)

    Old earth (2)

    and supralapsarian (1) but not active double-predestination. not all supralapsarians are hypercalvinists.

46. Where I stand (as if anyone cares). « WHATEVER! on 06 May 2008 at 10:11 pm #

    [...] I stand (as if anyone cares). C. Michael Patton from Reclaiming the Mind blog posted an article today wherein he acknowledged that people often ask him about [...]

47. Sue on 06 May 2008 at 10:15 pm #

    Hey, there is a strong history of fundamentalist feminists! The age of consent just went up in Canada this week. Let’s not forget that Catherine Booth, a woman preacher, requested British Parliament to raise the age of consent and protect young girls. There is lots of room for fundamentalist women preachers.

    I have to admit that I find the gynecology reference a little tasteless. I grew up seeing my fundamentalist mother of many children, as a powerful leader in the style of Susanna Wesley. My parents related to each other as leader and leader, not as leader and responder. I can’t see how women are to get through a day of raising children if they are trained to be responders. Where do we see women as responders in the Bible? That is, other than responders to God.

    My mom was a household baptist fundamentalist feminist old earth pre-trib Darbyite.

    PS I didn’t know that post mill was still an option.

48. Lisa R on 06 May 2008 at 10:31 pm #

    Mitch,

    I certainly cannot speak for CMP, but I think the different numberings within the TULIP suggests that he may be basing his convictions on a revealed understanding of scripture on each of these topics rather than adherence to a theological system.

49. Chris Triplet on 06 May 2008 at 10:54 pm #

    CMP said,
    “Wow Chris, too many 10s for me to take you too seriously”

    I guess I spend too much time on Monergism.com “LOL”.
    Some of you anti-calvinist need to start a Synergism.com
    and I’ll spend some time reading your point of view.

    Mitch said,
    “Continuist (10) I’ve seen things that I know was God. I’ve seen God’s power flood a room.”

    Now here’s someone who has a grasp of the issues

    What do you mean by your comment above. Sounds
    like you are being sassy! I can only
    report what I’ve experienced and seen in my own personal
    walk with God. I’m a continuist because I’ve experienced
    the power of God, seen the power of God, speak in tounges
    at will and grew up in a small Charismatic church in Louisiana. I know first hand of people healed from cancer
    and accounts from close and personal friends I have known for twenty years of their experience of
    God’s power in their life and the life of others including revelation gifts, healing and miracles.

    You should get the book by Dr. J.P Moreland on the Kingdom
    Triangle and listen to him on the converse with the scholars
    program. I really enjoyed it and have listened to it more than once.

    p.s.

    I’m honored to know that my post was read my C. Michael Patton. Thanks for starting this ministry. I admire you and
    want you to know how much this ministry has helped me.

50. C Michael Patton on 06 May 2008 at 11:23 pm #

    Lisa, right on!

51. Mitch on 07 May 2008 at 12:13 am #

    Chris:

    You wrote:

    I’m a continuist because………….
    1) I’ve experienced the power of God,
    2) seen the power of God,
    3) speak in tongues at will and
    4) grew up in a small Charismatic church in Louisiana.
    I know first hand of …………..
    5) people healed from cancer
    6) and accounts from close and personal friends I have known for twenty years of their experience of
    God’s power in their life and the life of others including revelation gifts, healing and miracles.

    There are many religions (even those antagonistic to Christianity) in the world that could make the same claims as these. There is nothing particularly “Christian” about these claims you make and hear about other than you, as a Christian, see them that way. I just find this kind of reasoning childish. Sorry, but that’s just the way I see it.

    Tibetan monks speak in tongues, and they are not even Christian. Muslims see the power of God, healings, revelations, etc. I just cringe when I see Christians writing this way. I’m sorry Chris but I am embarrassed when I see Christians defending some doctrine by such an approach.

    And because these miracles are a “reality” in your life, you have no alternative but to interpret passages in confirmation of them.

    Please don’t be offended. It’s just that I personally find the Charismatic system profoundly ignorant of the fundamental clarity of Scripture.

    post not reviewed for typos and errors…. it’s late; I’m outa here.

52. C Michael Patton on 07 May 2008 at 12:48 am #

    Brit,

    I am not done with the series on complementarianism. Just continue to hang with me on this boat my friend. Only divergent Christology should have us jumping ship! You may just be on the upper deck with a clearer view of things!

53. bethyada on 07 May 2008 at 2:19 am #

    Lisa Do we let the labels define our exegesis or our exegesis define our labels?

    Good call, very much the later. I would say that the former does (and should) have some effect. My understanding of some Scripture now significantly affects my approach to others: especially the creation/ fall/ redemption theme.

    Sue I grew up seeing my fundamentalist mother of many children, as a powerful leader in the style of Susanna Wesley.

    For a later thread but are you saying Susanna Wesley was an egalatarian?

    Mitch And because these miracles are a “reality” in your life, you have no alternative but to interpret passages in confirmation of them.

    And what is the alternative? We have documentary evidence this activity exists. It is either of God or demonic, and given this is in a Christian context and there is negliable Scriptural evidence for cessationism, the charismatic interpretation is reasonable. The existence of the counterfeit does not disprove the reality; in fact it may imply it.

54. Sue on 07 May 2008 at 2:30 am #

    Yes, I believe John and Susanna Wesley were cautious egalitarians.

55. Lisa R on 07 May 2008 at 5:20 am #

    Bethyada,

    Why would we want our theological system to inform our understanding of scripture? Now, I do think its important to understand how divergent theological systems interpret passages but I think it a bit dangerous to allow the systems to define that interpretation. Rather, letting the bible say what it says and then see where that falls out is of import, IMHO. Otherwise, I think we will firmly plant ourselves within the walls of whatever theological system we find our interpretation has planted us in and stop short of challenging those passages that would seem to contradict it.

56. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 7:01 am #

    “And Brit, just so you know, I will be attending the seminary where Michael went, starting this fall for the same program. And the seminary very much holds to a complementarian viewpoint. My expectations are that God will use me mightily. The sky is the limited!”

    Lisa, I am delighted to hear that you are attending Michael’s seminary.

    If anyone can reach for the skies in terms of leadership I believe it could be you (and that is the truth not a form of flattery), and clearly Michael agrees and has spotted some real potential.

    My only concern would be, will you be encouraged to fly right up there, and what role(s) will you be equipped for and permitted to carry out.

    It is my heartfelt belief that the Lisa Rs of this world should be taking their place on the leadership teams of churches across the world and not merely carrying out “complimentary” or what are often considered to be subordinate/subservient leadership roles.

    PS Could you do me a favour. When you arrive at seminary could you just check out the Modern Chuirch History part of the syllabus to make sure that it is not too sanitised..and great bloke though he is,,don’t stand in awe of Michael too much…it’s not good for a man’s ego to be told that he is right all the time!!!

57. minnowspeaks on 07 May 2008 at 7:42 am #

    Mitch in #51 wrote: “I just cringe when I see Christians writing this way. I’m sorry Chris but I am embarrassed when I see Christians defending some doctrine by such an approach.”
    So does this mean that if we don’t agree with you what we experience (or happen to see with our own eyes) can not be God because you believe it can’t be true. Sounds like some complementarians I’m starting to get to know.

58. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 8:17 am #

    “Brit,

    I am not done with the series on complementarianism. Just continue to hang with me on this boat my friend. Only divergent Christology should have us jumping ship! You may just be on the upper deck with a clearer view of things!”

    Hey…Michael

    Great news..we are back on speaking terms and gliding through calmer waters after the rather choppy breakers we have been navigating during the past few days.

    But just when I thought I had climbed down from off my very high and impassioned horse, you then go and spring it on me that there is more to follow in your “series” on complementarianism. I fear it may be the calm before the next storm!!

    You never told us it was a “series “!!, although given that we have already had six parts (I think by my estimation), I should have guessed! How long will this epic last for …is it a good ten-parter or more!? Given the subject matter this one could run and run! It could even be turned into a film one day!!

    …and if you dare come out at the end of the discussion and indicate that you may be a closet semi/quasi egalitarian after all, having observed me passionately baring my soul and declaring where I stand, you might just see me throwing back my head and howling in anguish at the moon!!! Why do I suddenly get the feeling that this is the direction we might be heading??

    Come on up to the upper deck (I wish…it will be some time before I graduate to that point..and as for having a clearer view…hmm..not so sure on that at all!) and let’s share a soda!

    PS I’m boldly going to declare that Lisa R will be your seminary Board Chair in less than 10 years time!

59. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 8:45 am #

    Hi Chris

    “Also I would be a bit happier if you were a bit less Roman Catholic/Orthodox in your approach to the grading of sinfulness. ”

    Point very much taken. Please accept my apologies.

60. Lisa R on 07 May 2008 at 8:50 am #

    Britphil,

    Thank you so much for your kind words. And in terms of what role I’ll play, my intention would be to honor what I believe the scriptures teach regarding the governance of the church in that I won’t go trying to run one. However, both within and outside the church, leadership opportunities abound to impact lives for Christ. And my goal would be to use the voice and gifting that God gave me to do just that.

    Also, I’d like you to check this lady out http://www.precept.org/site/PageServer?pagename=abt_kayarthur

    Kay Arthur very much holds to a complementarian view but as you can probably tell by this blurb, she is no shrinking violet. Just as Chuck Swindoll is CMP’s hero, she is my hero. And here is another woman leader that I very much look up to http://www.goingbeyond.com/shirer.asp. Priscilla Shirer is also a complementarian.

61. minnowspeaks on 07 May 2008 at 8:57 am #

    Britphil–I often enjoy your lighter side but am feeling particularly prickly lately so guess it’s a time for a break from P&P. I was hoping CMP would drop the topic since it seemed fairly clear to me lines were already firmly drawn for most folks. Anyway, hope I bump into you on some other blogs.

62. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 9:08 am #

    “Brit, wow, what happened? A couple of weeks ago I recall you said something like: “I’m going to take a long nap now…. imagining myself becoming somewhat Calvinistic…”…. and now this (above)!??

    Hi Susan..I know..my impassioned response must have come as big a shock to you as it did to me, but a couple of weeks ago CMP had not begun his inflammatory mini-series on Complimentarianism. Naive man that I am, I was expecting something a tad less complimentarian from Michael given his occasional roisk taking tendency to stray from the true five point Calvinist pathway!

    Rest assured I have calmed down a little now, and fairly normal service has been resumed although Michael has warned us that there i more to come on the ceries so expect a few more fireworks befoe the series is out!

    “I would rather been known as a Christian than a Calvinist any day”

    Preach it sister Susan. This is what frustrates me a bit that we have to sort of define the Christioan we are. Although it is important to know where we stand on issues is God really that bothered about us being determined to state that we are a dispensationalist, supralapsarian, amillenial, non-cahrismatic Clavinist Christian! I’m not so sure that we aren’t in danger of mudding the waters a bit too much.

    “Never-the-less, I started to feel almost offended that you would lump me, and Calvinists in general, in with all of the above-named atrocities. It’s almost like saying that because I’m a white American I bear the shame of slavery.”

    Susan…this is what concerned me most before I posted this, namely how it would appear to Clavinist readin this now. I do not believe that the people on this site are white supremacists who backed these atrocities. I am aware that the World Council of Refromed Churches declared aparthied to be a heresy. However, it cannot be denied that the campaign for complete segregation of the races was led by the then South African Prime Minister Daniel Francois Mlana, who was also a Dutch Reformed church minister. The Dutch Repofromed church hold to all the tenets of five point Calvinists.

    All I was trying to say is that why did it take the World Council of Reformed Churches some 20 years or
    to declare apartheid a heresy. My guess is that part of Calvinist teach9ing is that you cannot chakllenge the order of govermnment which bears the sword, hence because the lead advocate of aprtheid was Prime Minister of a government as well as a Calvinist minister, the biblical stance for not challengeing him was deemed greater than the gross injustices carried out agianst black, mainly Chritian people/

    I know you would not back this. All I ask is that Calvinsists are more vocal, more concerned to nip these things in the bud and strangle them at birth rather than let them runand run before the damage is done
    Also I would like to see more Calvinist church leaders encouraging their church memers to act ason theie values as well as just hold them. If this is happeneing and I am not aware of it please let me know.

    I speak as someone whose own denomination refused for many many years to speak out agianst slavery and who were founded (and went throughn their own reformation by someone of as dubious a character as King Henry III!! Be reassured, I am under no illusions whatsoever and if I made you feel personally guilty I apologise becasue that was not my intention.

63. Sue on 07 May 2008 at 9:15 am #

    Lisa, #60

    I think you are bringing up a very useful alternate form of complementarianism - I think you are comp, right. But you suggest a model in which women function as leaders, but in a different domain and in a different medium.

    For example, women could lead women at all levels, and amen to that, let’s have segregated seminaries. Women could speak at professional parachurch Christian confrences. Women can speak on TV. Women can write books and Bible studies.

    In this model, women possess all the leadership gifts in the same way that men do, but they must not use these gifts in the same arena as men.

    In the comp view that I read about in a paper recommended here, women are by nature responders, and men are by nature leaders. It would be hard for a group of responders to run conferences and organizations on their own. I mean, how could women operate on their own if they are trained to always follow male initiative?

    In short, I think, Lisa, that your view allows women to be themselves in a healthy way. It is more about complementary spaces and domains than about an overall view of women as having a different “bent” or nature. It makes good sense in a world where men are making the major decisions about biblical interpretation. (which is not a good thing but is the unfortunate reality.)

    I do agree with Britphil that some forms of complementarianism have analogies with slavery. For examples, the notion that men primarily initiate and women primarily respond deprives women of full humanity.

64. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 10:18 am #

    Before I get completely pilloried for grammartical heresy I am going to re-post my earlier message to Susan minus the grammatical errors present in the previous post. I am surprised that nobody has informed me that the Church of England was not actually formed at the behest of King Henry III!!

    “Brit, wow, what happened? A couple of weeks ago I recall you said something like: “I’m going to take a long nap now…. imagining myself becoming somewhat Calvinistic…”…. and now this (above)!??

    Hi Susan..I know..my impassioned response must have come as much of a shock to you as it did to me, but a couple of weeks ago CMP had not begun his inflammatory mini-series on Complimentarianism! Naive man that I am, I was expecting something a tad less complimentarian from Michael given his occasional risk-taking tendency to err and stray from the true five point Calvinist pathway!

    Rest assured I have calmed down a little now, and fairly normal service has been resumed although Michael has warned us that there is more to come on the series so expect a few more fireworks before the series is out!

    “I would rather been known as a Christian than a Calvinist any day”

    Preach it sister Susan…and then preach it again! This is what frustrates me a bit that we have to sort of define the Christian that we are. Although it is important to know where we stand on certain issues, is God really that bothered about us being determined to state that we are a dispensationalist, supralapsarian, amillenial, non-charismatic Calvinist Christian! I’m not so sure that we aren’t in danger of muddying the waters a bit too much.

    “Never-the-less, I started to feel almost offended that you would lump me, and Calvinists in general, in with all of the above-named atrocities. It’s almost like saying that because I’m a white American I bear the shame of slavery.”

    Susan…this is what concerned me most before I posted this, namely how it would appear to Calvinists reading it. I do not believe that the people on this site are back these atrocities. I am aware that the World Council of Reformed Churches declared apartheid to be a heresy. However, it cannot be denied that the campaign for complete segregation of the races was led by the then South African Prime Minister Daniel Francois Malan, who was also a Dutch Reformed church minister. The Dutch Reformed church hold to all the tenets of five point Calvinism.

    All I was trying to say is that why did it take the World Council of Reformed Churches some 20 years or
    to declare apartheid a heresy. My guess is that part of Calvinist teaching is that you cannot challenge the order of government which “bears the sword”, hence because the lead advocate of apartheid was Prime Minister of a government as well as a Calvinist minister, the biblical justification for not challenging his ideology was deemed to be greater than actively opposing the gross injustices carried out against black, mainly Christian people in South Africa.

    I know you would never back apartheid. All I ask is that Calvinists are more vocal, more concerned to nip these things in the bud and strangle them at birth, rather than to meekly let them run and run before the damage is done.

    Also I would like to see more Calvinist church leaders encouraging their church memers to positively act on their values as well as just hold them. If this is happening on the ground and I am not aware of it please let me know. It would be fantastic to hear that it is happening.

    I speak as someone whose own denomination refused for many many years to speak out against slavery. Also, yes, I feel we white people, British or American, do have a measure of guilt to bear because of this - I do actually believe in acts of corporate and structural repentance by cjurch and nation where necessary.

    Also I am fully aware that my own denomination was founded (and went through their own reformation) by someone as dubious in character as King Henry VIII!!

    Be reassured..be very reassured… I am under no illusions whatsoever, and if I made you feel personally guilty I apologise because that was not my intention.

65. Vance on 07 May 2008 at 10:20 am #

    Um, I actually prefer it when my wife initiates . . . :0)

66. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 10:35 am #

    “Britphil–I often enjoy your lighter side but am feeling particularly prickly lately so guess it’s a time for a break from P&P. ”

    Minnowspeaks…I think you are both a very wise and a very brave lady!

    It must have been pretty grim being an egalitarian female and having to try to contend with the content of some of the posts during the past few days. I sometimes wonder whether the intention was to depress and discourage people like yourself so much so that you will no longer feel like contributing to the site. I felt like it very much myself earlier in the week!

    It has been really good having your input. I hope you gain from other blogs the edification and the encouragement that you require, need and deserve. P&P’s loss is very much some other blog’s gain in my view!

    Hopefully, when the dust has settled a bit (probably in about 10 years time!!), you have taken a bit of a break and the subject matter is a touch less inflammatory we may see you return, and the stronger for it.

    Take really good care

    Phil

67. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 10:39 am #

    Vance

    …isn’t that the experience of households across the world!

    I remember when CMP posted his Wittenberg Door Thesis-style “Where I Stand” post yesterday, he commented that “his wife was getting mad so he had to go”

    It sounds very much to me like, in this instance, Michael’s wife initiated and Michael responded…which isn’t the way it is meant to be…or is it I wonder???

68. Chris Triplet on 07 May 2008 at 11:05 am #

    Hey Mitch,

    Thanks for your criticism. Please trust me. I understand your
    point of view and appreciate it. I am continuist because of
    what I see in scripture first and by experience on a secondary
    level. I know their are false signs and wonders but I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    I always get myself in trouble when I post blog comments.
    For the record, I’m a Charismatic Calvinist Christian who attends a United Methodist Church. I can fellowship with
    any body of believers who love Jesus and love people. I
    don’t care if they share all of my theological convictions
    on non-essential issues.

    I only use Christian speak when I’m visiting a blog like this
    because I assume we are all hungry to know more of God’s
    truth and have a strong desire to grow in the intellectual aspects
    of our faith.

    God Bless and have a blessed week.

69. Jugulum on 07 May 2008 at 11:05 am #

    brit,

    I’m fairly sure that’s a separate question from the main substance of the complementarian/egalitarian issues.

70. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 11:15 am #

    Lisa R

    I have taken your advice to heart, after all, as you well know, I am a man who is more than happy to follow the instruction of a woman, and checked out both Kay and Priscilla’s site.

    Whereas I think it is very clear that Priscilla views her ministry as to be geared towards women, I would still argue that the Bible study she facilitated at the company mentioned would have been attended by men as well. Also, with regard to television ministries, are you seriously trying to tell me that there are no men who sit under “women’s” teaching ministries on TV? Surely you would have to dissuade them from doing so, and how would such behaviour be regulated and moderated by church leaders?

    With regard to Kay, I really like the cut of her jib as we say in the UK. However, having read her site carefully it would appear to me however that as husbands became excited by her ministry, I guess the 1800 people she taught included a fair few men. She also claims that she wants to ground “people (ie I take it that by definition she means both men and women in the truth.) Where does this fit into the complimentarian stance on teaching and leadership exactly?

    I take it you are more than happy for women to lead, (you rightly describe Kay and Priscilla as women leaders who you look up to and admire)mpanies and speaking ministries but not “the church”. Are such ministries not part of “the church”? Is there not a level of compromise with what you claim the Bible teaches here??

    Having said that I love Kay and her husbands ministry’s doctrinal basis which is short, concise and does not require you to tick innumerable boxes before you have to prove that you are an authentic bona-fide Christian. Some of the doctrinal basis statements that I have read have been both mind boggling and sleep inducing and leave me wondering whether Jesus himself would have been able to sign up!

    I also can see why you hold both Priscilla and Kay in such high regard. There are women from the more egalitarian side of the fence who are equally impressive and also miightily used of God, which is good news for the church as a whole in my view.

71. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 11:24 am #

    Hi Jugulum..

    “brit,

    I’m fairly sure that’s a separate question from the main substance of the complementarian/egalitarian issues.”

    I confess to being a touch puzzled.. In what way exactly.Please enlighten me..I’m sure you will!!

72. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 11:31 am #

    “I know their are false signs and wonders but I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    I always get myself in trouble when I post blog comments.
    For the record, I’m a Charismatic Calvinist Christian who attends a United Methodist Church. I can fellowship with
    any body of believers who love Jesus and love people. I
    don’t care if they share all of my theological convictions
    on non-essential issues.

    I only use Christian speak when I’m visiting a blog like this
    because I assume we are all hungry to know more of God’s
    truth and have a strong desire to grow in the intellectual aspects
    of our faith.”

    Chris Triplet…may I stretch across the ocean and shake your hand my friend!
    I have discovered during my month long journey in the P&P blogosphere that,
    If I have to describe myself (which I am loath to..but here goes anyway) ..I am an emerging charismatic chiefly Arminian mostly egalitarian definitely non-supralapsarian Christian who also happens to attend and help lead a Church of England church in the UK.

    If you think you get into trouble when you blog comments, take a trawl through some of my stuff on here, especially during the last week!

    Keep on loving Jesus and loving all those people out there!!

73. Truth Unites... and Divides on 07 May 2008 at 11:34 am #

    BritPhil: “I am an emerging charismatic Arminian egalitarian non-supralapsarian Christian whio attends and helps lead a Church of England church.”

    God bless you and keep you.

74. Jugulum on 07 May 2008 at 11:35 am #

    britphil,

    First, I should say that I forgot to add a smiley, to indicate the spirit of my comment.
    Second, here’s what I was thinking: That the defining characteristics of the comp/egal question are (1) leadership & authority roles in the church, and (2) leadership & authority & ultimate accountability/responsibility in the home. (”No initiative” is another matter.)

    And really, that seems to be what Sue was thinking when she said “some forms of complementarianism” at the end of comment #63.

75. britphil on 07 May 2008 at 12:04 pm #

    “God bless you and keep you.”

    TU&D

    Thanks for your blessings (I would add a smiley face at this point but I have not yet worked out how to! If anyone can help guide me through this dilemma, please feel free!). I can assure that despite my multiplicity of theological leanings, he does bless me, and has kept me but please keep on praying.. I will probably be in need supplication before long!

    Jugulum

    Many thanks also. I think I now understand!

    I’m about to leave you folks until tomorrow to do some initiating in the Britphil household…that’s if my wife and daughter will let me!! (another smiley face!)

76. SRH on 07 May 2008 at 12:15 pm #

    Sue #47 —
    [b][i]I didn’t know that post mill was still an option.[/b][/i]

    oh yeah, Postmillennialism IS still an option, and growing steadily in adherents!

    http://forerunner.com/beast/X0006_Postmil_and_Reformed.html
    http://www.wittenberghall.com/postmillennialism/
    http://www.americanvision.org/eschatologyarchive.asp

77. Lisa R on 07 May 2008 at 12:15 pm #

    Brit, the colon and the right parathesis no space will yield the smiley face.

    Like this

78. Sue on 07 May 2008 at 12:38 pm #

    I mention initiative because I heard it was in the wedding vows of some DTS friends of mine that the wife follow the initiative of the husband. In my view initiative and leadership are the same thing. Deprive the woman of initiative and both male and female are deprived of their humanity. Allow the woman only initiative when the man wants her to have initiative creates mind games on both sides.

79. clearblue on 07 May 2008 at 1:34 pm #

    Interesting range of comments and responses, from Michael’s down.

    What it shows to me is where people get their views from and what their basis of authority is: Bible, tradition, reason and experience (and sentimentality, group-think, gullibility, theological frameworks, scientific consensus, urban myths and more), in various mixes and proportions. Ultimately, the difference between the first (Bible) and the other bases of authority is that what God says is the ultimate basis for belief in the case of the Bible (or it used to be for evangelicals), and what fallible humans think and feel is our ultimate basis of authority (in the other cases).

    Michael’s rating of Limited Atonement at 1 seems to show that Michael believes in LA for reasons other than Scripture. If it doesn’t mean that, Michael needs to use a more transparent rating system. If it does mean that, then that leaves Michael (as an evangelical) with some questions to
    answer - like, isn’t the Bible the ultimate basis of authority?

    However, in Michael’s defence (perhaps) …

    The ratings of charismatic gifts also raises interesting questions, for me. I am skeptical of most modern charismatic claims, but I also do not believe that the Bible speaks of any cessation (the 1 Cor. 13 passage refers to gifts ceasing at Christ’s coming, not at the completion of the canon). So I would rate Cessation at a 2-3 (Biblically), but still hold that historically the post-apostolic evidence of legitimate God-given charismatic gifts (like speaking in tongues or dog-barks) is pretty thin (and some of the Biblical argumentation, e.g. on baptism in the Spirit, is just third-rate folk-theology). Does this leave me in the same predicament as Michael’s 1 on LA - ie. I am, for practial purposes a cessationist, but not for Biblical reasons?

    No, I don’t think so. That is because I believe the Bible is silent on the subject of cessation. My ‘proof text’ verse on this is Heb. 2:4 - God gives His gifts according to His own will, whenever He wants - He is sovereign and can
    give gifts today if He wishes. So I am rather agnostic and even open-minded on the subject. Hey, I wish I could do undeniable miracles that drew crowds of thousands to hear the Gospel like the apostles - I really mean that. And
    perhaps God is doing this in some countries today.

    But is Michael genuinely sitting on the fence re: Limited Atonement?