Hi Lydia,
Excellent post. You are very right about the whole “check your brain at the door” mentality. The irony is that Calvinism appeals to smart people. Many of my friends in SGM are quite bright and successful. How they can apply rational thought to their jobs, for example, and yet completely throw up their hands in the face of theological nonsense is a mystery to me…except to say, I did it too; and my excuse was that I just didn’t think about it too deeply. I think on a superficial level, Calvinism has done such a good job of creating such HIGH face value, that people just assume the theological fundamentals must be just as sensible. I guess what I’m trying to say is that people can readily grasp the inconsistencies and the non-logic when they are faced with it; the problem is that they rarely are; and thinking about it for themselves is not something that really appeals or occurs to them. Occasionally, something will explode, like Brent’s wikileaks bag of flaming poop thrown at the figurative door, and a few people will step back and take pause and take a gander at the doctrinal premises. But even then, it is rare that people actually challenge the presumptions. Look at the anti SGM blogs…practically NO ONE is questioning the doctrine. And I mean NO ONE. Why?! Well…seems to me that they are still listening to their pastoral “authority”. One of the first things Detwilier did when he hypocritically attacked his spiritual superior is categorically deny doctrine had ANYTHING to do with the rank abuse and corruption of the SGM leadership (because if he concedes doctrine is at fault, he knows he then becomes culpable for the very corruption he is railing against; so for Brent, it literally CANNOT be the doctrine, or he’s never pastoring again). So…a pastor said it, he’s the authority (even subconsciously), and so, , viola! Guess what? It’s not the doctrine. Because the Calvinist says so. The SGM churches leaving…well, THEIR pastors say or imply that they are being doctrinally consistent, so, voila!! And guess what? It isn’t the doctrine…again, because the (twice hypocritical!) Calvinists say it isn’t. Those who have EVERYTHING to lose by blaming doctrine are the ones who are believed when they say “It’s not the doctrine…” and “You are the worst sinner you know” doesn’t mean what you think; it means what WE think, and what we think will change depending on the situation; so we’ll tell you what it means and when. You can just show up and nod and tithe.”
Gross me out, people.
The surreality just keeps going and going. It’s still the same old story. There is only a problem if the Calvinist PASTOR says it’s a problem. If they say it’s not the doctrine, then it’s not the doctrine, despite aaaaaaaaalllll of the in-your-face evidence that proves it IS the doctrine.
Whatever. That’s why I started this blog. I got so fed up with being told “don’t debate doctrine here…there’s more pressing matters to attend to”. So, I’ll debate doctrine on this blog, even if it’s just me and a few others. It doesn’t matter where doctrine is discussed…it must be discussed. DOCTRINE is what must be dismantled, everything else is just a symptom. That’s a fact. Mark my words, in SGM, nothing will change. In the churches leaving, it will be even worse than it was before they left. Unless they renounce the doctrine, they are twice hypocrites and they WILL be twice as corrupt. If you are sill in SGM and you want to keep your doctrine, my advice is to go to an SGM church that is still in SGM. You’ll be better off.
In terms of Genesis 3…yes, I have thought a lot about that. It seems to me that the problem arises when Adam and Eve know “Good and Evil”, as you mentioned. I wrote about this in my large essay (of which I’m posting bits and pieces here on this blog). I won’t go into too much detail because I’ll make the whole subject a post eventually once I get through the election/free will bit, but for me, it has to do with the fact that, once they were aware that there was in fact GOOD and EVIL and that that “law” comprised the moral nature of their existence, then good and evil became FUNCTIONALLY real to them…that is, from that point on, they were no longer judged by their innocence of the law, but by their obligation to it. They lost the moral “neutrality” of NOT knowing good and evil…and it is that kind of morality, the mere GOOD in the absence of any EVIL that is God’s standard because it is what defines HIS moral existence. So, even if Adam and Eve were to do GOOD, it is only good insofar as the EVIL they understand via the moral law gives GOOD its goodness (its contextual meaning). So, as judged by the law, there is always good AND evil implicated in everything they do. Again, even if they were to do only good, that good is not morally neutral, it is only good insofar as it is given meaning via to the existence of evil…doing what you are supposed to do is DEFINED by what you are NOT supposed to do…they are inexorable, and vice versa. Thus, the sacrifice of Christ restores man to his position of moral neutrality…or innocence. Which is the morality of God: GOOD only, absent ANY reference of EVIL.
unreformingtheology 
Well, very frustrating. I had a long comment in response last night and my mifi shut down and I did not know it and lost the whole thing! Will reread and respond again.
In the meantime, I have another link for you to look at on a YRR pastors type blog. It is very interesting concerning “Worship God for His Wrath”.
http://sbcvoices.com/when-is-the-last-time-you-worshiped-god-for-his-wrath/
One of the most interesting things in the comment thread is a well known YRR guy is claiming in that thread that man “chooses” to reject God. When someone calls him out on it, he says the thread is not about Calvinism and it is not to be discussed.
Sorry, reading that thread made me think of you. I can worship God for his Love, Mercy, Graace, Justice, etc. But His “Wrath”? Not because I do not think it exists in God, I know for a fact it does. But this is just another tool in the Calvin arsenal. I acknowledge God’s wrath and even fear it to a certain degree as a believer even though I do not have to. But “worship” His Wrath?
These guys are getting more ridiculous by the minutte.
I will say this, Argo, Calvinism does appeal to intellectuals and the reason why is that most of what is found in many faith communities is so pedantic and shallow. There are a lot of people out there that are very sick of it. They want deep conversations. Answers to serious questions, etc. And guess what, Calvinism provides it. Now, you and I no longer agree with the answers because we went on thinking.
I think the problem with what happens in Calvinism to these people is ultimately the “appeal to authority” and many intellectuals will begin by listening and even agreeing and as they sucked in, they forget to think for themselves on the questions. The thinkers are so happy to have a place that “goes deeper”, when it really doesn’t. . Seriously, if you grew up with Rick Warren or Ed Young type of Christianity, Calvinism seems like grad school. It is just that it is grad school in Leningrad.
I do not think the “thinkers” last in Calvinism unless they are benefiting from it in some way otherwise. It might take years but they will start to see the obvious fallacies. I am starting to even see some of my old Calvinist friends starting to break away from it. And guess what, there is NO place to go. The choices for folks who are interested in going deeper, discussing the metaphysics, are just about nil..
“I won’t go into too much detail because I’ll make the whole subject a post eventually once I get through the election/free will bit, but for me, it has to do with the fact that, once they were aware that there was in fact GOOD and EVIL and that that “law” comprised the moral nature of their existence, then good and evil became FUNCTIONALLY real to them…that is, from that point on, they were no longer judged by their innocence of the law, but by their obligation to it.”
I read something somewhere eons ago that suggested that the “law” actually started to become reality at this time Not as in Mosaic law…but laws as in what is right and wrong. Before, there was no need to know right from wrong. Now there was because they knew evil existed. Think about it, the serpent most likely did not look evil at all and he made sense in what he said. (sound familiar?)
And I totally agree with about SGM. I still go over and read some at survivors and it grieves me to read those who have left even after a long time still making the same basic mistakes in belief. Many are them are ripe for another spiritually abusive situation because the basics have not changed for them. The fact that many of them give Brent a big pass is a huge indicator how ingrained it is. If you read Brent (which I have and almost wanted to blow my brains out…the guy should have worked as an analyst for the CIA) you can see he still buys into the authoritarianism. He simply sees himself as the pure one.
Hi Lydia,
Like I said, I think on the surface, it makes so much sense. And because of that, people generally judge a book by its cover. They don’t need to go deeper in discovering the logical fallacies, because they are so sure that there is a good answer for it. To go thinking about it just proves you are prideful and not trusting that God knows more than you. When we decided that our reason MUST be how we have faith in God, they throw you out as a heretic.
I would never be accepted back in my old SGM churches. I consider this a badge of honor.
John Immel was the one who said first that Calvinism appeals to intelligent people. I added that it appeals to good and humble people, too. That’s what makes it so insidious and hard to dismantle. So many smart people who love to humble themselves before their “benevolent” gnostics. Exhibit A: Bret Detwiler. Clearly a good man, humble, leader, and rank doctrinal hypocrite. But people give him a past on the hypocrite bit because he SEEMS so good and humble. Those that approve of Brent are functionally no different than those who approve of CJ. They NEVER question the metaphysically and epistemologically irrational doctrine, thus, they wind up no better than they were before. They leave the church, or the church leaves SGM, and the WAYS never change. Abuse is still there, it only takes a little longer to manifest itself because people are at them moment hypersensitive to the OUTCOMES of heavy handed application of the doctrine. But not the doctrine. So, the frog jumps out of the boiling water into cold water, which then slowly starts to heat up again. The frog never understands that it is the WATER that is the problem, not the heat. The boiling is the natural evolution of the water itself when the “heat” (doctrine) is applied. The frog needs to understand that to avoid the boiling, he or she needs to avoid the water altogether.
Also, on a side note…sorry I haven’t posted more on election and free will. I am wrestling withe the time conundrum. I mean, I feel my theory is sound, but in pursuing the time question, I stumbled upon something that has occupied my thinking. I have a good friend who is an astro physicist in the field of relativity, and I want to run it by him. It would explain why the universe is expanding in physical, not necessarily metaphysically terms (but, there IS some metaphysics implied)…this is not some pipe theory. I think it has merit, but I need to make sure it is theoretically possible before I post more on election/free will. I need to be sure that my definition of how we view time is correct according to physics. This takes TIME! Ha, ha. In the mean time, I think I’ll post a bit more on my views on SGM and Calvinisms hypocrisy in general, as a function of their poor metaphysics. That is ALWAYS fun.