Like I said, I think on the surface, it (Calvinism) 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 (even if you disagree…who are YOU, Oh man….to judge God?). When we decide that our reason MUST be how we have faith in God (and it MUST…I don’t care what they think), 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 the 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.