Pensees: Calvinism: The Slippery Slope of the Young-ish Fundamental-ish (And Other Camels’ Noses in the Evangelical Camp)

After reading this I’m not sure whether I should feel happy or scared. I guess I did become Presbyterian before the next Steve Green CD dropped, but I’m not sure sure about the baby and the bathwater.

Leaving an FIHL church was the most daunting experience in my life. It actually took three years of spiritual barreness before I finally got up the nerve to walk out that door (not to imply tha the church was responsible for my spiritual barreness).

After visiting virtually every Bible-believing church in the area, we began attending a Presbyterian (PCA) church. The past four months have been full of fellowship, spiritual renewal and sanctification through grace.

I still don’t know where the path is leading, but I do know that it’s exciting to be in an environment where the authority of the Bible is the ultimate arbiter. Where we recognize ourselves as sinners saved by grace, struggling as humans to become Christ-like (another aspect of our sinful nature), yet being reminded to rest in Him. The last few months have been some of the richest in my spiritual walk.

As I go through this year I am, for the first time, studying what the Bible has to say about Personal Holiness and Standards as well as Worship and Music. Not to be bottle-fed someone elses personal standards, but to be convinced in my own mind what the Word of God truly says.

Will I fall on the FIHL/Bixby party line? No, not on everything, (maybe not on most things) but at least I am trying to live my life through God’s Grace in total reliance on Him.

BTW, I was reminded of the Fundamentalist Nike mentality (Just Do It) when I was reading Acts 4 and the Council could not deny the miracle, they just “commanded” the apostles to stop. Another of those slippery slope “arguments.”

Ha! I forgot that I had a Presbyterian relation! Well, you should feel happy and scared! Frankly, the “presbyterian” result is insignificant. (After all, you can be presby and still bojo, as we all know.)My point is the hasty abandonment of everything former because of dislike alone is not a good trend, will not anchor a person, and ultimately result in more abandonment.

Frankly, if I needed my soul to be fed I’d go to some Presbyterian churches in heartbeat before I’d darken the door of some fundamental Baptist churches. As I said in my post, I’m not sectarian enough to get my underwear all in a wad about someone leaving my “sect” (Baptist or whatever).

But I think a “happy AND scared” mood is probably wise.

Interesting observation. Reflecting on history, though, haven’t there been other Calvinists (or at at least Calvinish) in the IFB spectrum? I know for certain that the GARBC has always had a significant Calvinist influence, though it has not been exclusively a Calvinist fellowship. They even had a sizable contingency leave the association in the 70s or 80s because of that very issue. My father attended BBC in Springfield, MO in the 1970s, and even then, there was a prof there who was promoting Calvinist writers like AW Pink.

That being said, it does seem that Fundamentalism has had a lot of “first generation” type influences and sub-movements. For some of us, the fact that we don’t have large bus programs and “pack a pew” Sundays make us a first generation something or other… and certainly, some of those who preceded us were the “first generation” to implement such tactics.

Bob,

Very interesting article and, I think, an admission on your part that would be difficult for many others. You did, and very sensitively, go out of your way to add the necessary disclaimers, but still some tough love for Calvinists with their fingers on the eject button.

Some questions:
1) Why isn’t the grace of the aforementioned Calvinists persevering or at least persevering in not such a libertine way?
2) Why does the grace of these same Calvinists that is so certain to keep the soul not so certain to keep the Words of Scripture or their teachings (emergents)?
3) Why is the grace of these Calvinists becoming more worldly?
4) Why does the grace of these Calvinists seem more often than not tending toward personal freedoms?
5) Why does this Calvinistic trajectory seem to travel so regularly toward quietism versus pietism?
6) Why was the Calvinism of the Puritans, which was so respectful of the power and influence of the flesh in an age of modesty and restraint and before television, so different than modern Calvinism in its fruit of sanctification in a day with exponentially more fleshly influences?

Even if the Calvinism is a pendulum swing, it would seem it would land on the real thing and not a placebo.

Bob,

Who’s Steve Green? And, are you saying that baptists are babies?

Joking aside, I’d say this is a pretty good article (actually, in all seriousness, I really don’t know what Steve Green has to do with any of this).

Here are some comments and quibbles from someone who’s thrown out the bathwater and whatever it was that was floating in it — I don’t think it was a baby:

1) It’s not too hard to find second, third, and fourth generation Calvinists — they won’t be as fanatical about the five responses to the remonstrants as the first generation guys and they will have allowed the reformed understanding of life to become a worldview not just a soteriology.

2) There are many, many Calvinists and presbyterians who are just as opposed to “contemporary worship” as any fundamentalist. The difference is some of the presbys actually have a coherent reason for their opposition.

3) Is it a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you accuse some of “all the swagger of a theological jock”?

4) This is fantastic — truly exellent rhetoric (and I’m not being facetious): “Just because one dresses smarter than a Mormon missionary doesn’t mean one has a ‘good testimony.’ It only means that white shirts and ties are still marketable to self-righteous people. One is potentially as lost as the other.”

5) I’ll avoid being sent to live under a brigde by not discussing the swig of beer comment — other than to say there are many ways to get a swig without Calvinism.

Kent,

God’s word says, “And you will know the truth and the truth will make you free.” Personal freedom is a blessing greatly to be desired. It is not something to be rationed out or to “keep in balance.” Of course, it is freedom from sin not freedom to sin — but that’s quite different than self designed and imposed bondage to avoid the possibility of a slippery slope into sin.

I don’t know many presbys who tend toward quietism. I do know that we view pietism (as opposed to piety) as a big problem. We refer to it with terms like “super spirituality” and “legalism” and “trying to be holier than God.”

The Puritans were not the buttoned up, repressed kill joys that have entered our imaginations through secular literature and film and fundamentalist revisionism. If you haven’t already, you should read Lelan Ryken’s book on them. It’s title: Worldly Saints.

Keith, one of my favorite commenters (though Presby and drinking):

Steve Green has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

1. True.
2. True.
3. Maybe.
4. Thanks.
5. Thanks.

Keith,

I’m sure an University of Oregon grad, English professor from Wheaton, thought his title, Worldly Saints, a clever twist. Unlikely it is that John Bunyan would think the same, this amalgamation of Mr. Worldly-Wise and Christian, both in reality the same character. Why read someone’s spin when one can himself peruse the Puritans?

When I lost my life for His, I left behind my shackles of sin for those of a galley slave, a subordinate rower of Christ, not henceforth living unto myself but unto Him Who died for me, a new creature, no longer fashioning myself according to my former lusts.

Good food for thought, Bob. I think you may be giving Calvinism too much credit, though. I too am a first-generation Calvinist, but I’m aware of many Calvinists who are more culturally conservative than your typical Arminian IFB church. (Think Mt. Calvary, the Free Presbyterian Church, much of the OBF, etc.) And I’m also aware of non-Calvinists who have left the cultural conservatism of your typical Arminian IFB church for an Arminian evangelical church. (Think Zichterman, much of the SBC, etc.)

I’m just not sure there is a strong connection between the increase in Reformed doctrine and the increase in throw-caution-to-the-wind rejection of former standards, though the two are happening concurrently, to be sure. The former is the result of an open Bible. The latter may just be the result of the flesh (assuming the standards being rejected are biblical, which is not always the case, of course) and have nothing to do with one’s theological position.

In short, I’m not certain that one’s theological position and one’s level of conservatism are all that related. It reminds me of those who say that Covenant Theology leads to New Evangelicalism. There are just too many exceptions on both sides of the argument (fundamental CT’s and evangelical DT’s, to use that example) to demonstrate any cause-and-effect relationship.

Or I could be an idiot.

Kent,

I would hope it could go without saying that if one must choose between perusing the puritans himself and reading Dr. Ryken’s very sympathetic and laudatory study of the puritans, then one ought to choose the origninal sources. Of course, that means one ought to also ignore your interpretations of the puritans. Thankfully, in reality, we can read primary and secondary sources to good effect.

I don’t disagree with you that we were set free from bondage to sin for service to Christ — as Bob Dylan said, “You gotta serve somebody.”

The point here is that we’re dealing with metaphors and terminology — both of which require care and open, honest discussion.

You want to allow “worldly” to mean only “sinful”. Worldly can mean sinful — no debate. However, what Ryken means by worldly — and what is perfectly legitimate within the semantic field of the word — is that the puritans were opposed to being “so heavenly minded that they were no earthly good.” They believed that their sainthood meant they should enjoy God and his creation and make an impact for good. They enjoyed creation for God’s glory — they did not hide from creation in the hopes of avoiding sin.

Is it an appropriate metaphor to say as you do, that we are slaves to Christ? Of course. I think the apostle Paul did that. It’s even appropriate to point out that we are “bound” to Christ as a galley slave is bound to his bench. However, is the primary, ultimate image of our slavery to Christ that of a woebegotten, whipped, and miserable rower? In many ways, isn’t our service more like that of a trusted, empowered, well rewarded house servant?

Is it also appropriate to say that, in Christ, we are absolutely free? Yes, I think Christ himself did that. We are like cherished sons. Of course, the imagery is not of a spoiled brat son but a faithful and loving and loyal son — but a son who is free not indentured.

So, I’ll agree to the slave metaphor, properly understoon. Will you agree to the son/freedom metaphor, properly understood? If you will, then is there any sense in which you can see how a son would be wrong to limit true and approved of freedoms out of fear of displeasing his loving father?

I’m a father. I want my son to be loyal. However, I don’t want him to live in fear of displeasing me. My love wants him to feel freedom in his loyalty.

I am not a theologin nor a present nor past Bible college student. So, needless to say, I am not nearly as educated as probably most of you are.

What’s a troll? Is that someone who makes inflammatory comments just to irk the readers of the website? I think that’s what it might mean.

I would like to echo a previous poster’s question. My understanding is that fundamentalism has always been squarely divided between Calvinists and non-Calvinists? Am I wrong? I thought the FUNDAMENTALS were agreed upon and was the commone cause, but issues like Calvinism were extraneous to the definition of fundamentalism? I was under the understanding that the fundamentals were not up to debate.

This is not a “troll” comment: Steve Green does have a lot to do with a lot of things. I have relatives who are of the strict Baptist type and they spend much of their lives wondering and debating about issues such as if Steve Green style of music is something Christians should really listen to, or is he actually just a step below KISS in depravity. I’m not kidding!

For the record, I think Steve Green has has a wonderful ministry for many years. The ones I feel sorry for are my overly critical relatives who are spending (wasting?) their lives actually debating if the Steve Green genre (not just him in particular) of music is worldly because they might be able to hear a drum in the background. If any of you are familiar with these types of people you’ll realize I’m not kidding. I feel so bad for my relatives that are caught up in this whole system of religious rules that they never actually get much beyond some of these silly issues in their lives………….But again, I’m not aware of where this relates to Calvinism. I have a lot to learn.

I also question the direct link between Calvinism and people leaving fundamentalism. As a cross reference, the article today on Sharper Iron concerning Christ Centered preaching may provide a more direct relationship. People are baling out of IFC’s when they discover another church truly preaching Christ Centered, Biblically Theological, immediately applicable content. And like the Pharisees we are thoroughly blind to it.

Depending on the day of the week I am a four or five point Calvinist because it best reflects my understanding of what the Scripture teaches. I also believe that it represents the best hope for rescuing fundamentalism. Four hundred years ago Calvinism in turned Europe upside-down. What Luther couldn’t do, Calvin did. What Calvin couldn’t do, the Huguenots did. What the Huguenots couldn’t do, the English Puritans did. And they did it by preaching and teaching the way to Jesus and that way is most effectively taught by the doctrines of grace.

MM

first post here. enjoy reading your perspectives.

i remember my own journey to the ‘enlightenment’ of calvinism and i particularly remember ‘the cage-stage’ - this is what a friend called it during the first two years when an IFB is discovering the doctrines of grace. the way he, a life-long presby, explained it was that the best thing to do is to lock the individual in a cage for two years to force him to sort through his new paradigm and then let him out only when he’s mature enough to handle the powerful truths he now understands. not a bad idea.

The “cage stage”: That’s funny.

MM, I’d suggest that “Christ centred preaching” and “Calvinism” are almost synonymous in the mind of someone who comes from a typical Fundamentalist, anti-Calvinist background. Calvinism is inherently Christ-centred and this is a bit of a shock to the system of those coming from a typical man-centred background.

Thanks for your thoughts Bob.

I’ve had a front row seat for a number of these “conversions”, and my observations suggest another way in which Calvinism and libertinism might be linked in our movement. Upon discovering Calvinism, many Christian young people are disillusioned that they were never exposed to these doctrines as children. To these young Calvinists, the suppression of the doctrines of grace by their parents, pastors, and Christian school teachers is not just a failing but an act of duplicity.

As a result, Calvinists begin to question the dependability of their spiritual teachers on everything else. In many cases the young Calvinists rapidly shed the prohibitions of their anti-Calvinist teachers. Rather than thoughtfully reevaluating these other issues, they make decisions based on emotion. Rather than running to something positive, they run away from something that disappointed them.

As I look at my peers, I think that reactionary decision making of this sort and lack of accountability are two of the gravest threats to the spiritual well-being of “college and career” aged Christians. Sad to say, I know newly Reformed Christians a few years out of college who are already alcoholics by virtue of their new-found freedom.

I hesitate to post a reply. After all, what do you say to young people who already have everything about the Bible and Christian living all figured out? Whatever I could add would surely be blown off as drivel from one of the unenlightened of the older generation.

I find myself wondering lots of things as I read stuff like what’s in this particular blog post. I’ll just list some of these random thoughts of mine.

1. “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” 1 Cor 10:23

2. What about Ephesians 5?

3. How would the enlightened ones define words like carnality, worldliness, or the world that we’re not to love?

4. Is the grace spoken of here the same kind that is abounding in the first few verses of Romans 6?

5. Does any of this have anything to do with Jude 4 where we read “who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality”?

6. Does God give us His grace to make us more self-indulgent and carnal?

7. Is the grace I’m reading about on this blog leading people towards greater holiness and godliness?

8. Are the Puritans, or Spurgeon, or Calvin the ones Scripture urges us to be imitators of?

Michael C.

I would strongly opppose emotional decision making and a lack of accountability. Most Calvinists would also oppose these things. They would also oppose alcoholism — or as Scripture names it, drunkenness.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that some, if not many, former fundies abandon their fundamentalist prohibitions in fits of emotionalism and go on to sins such as drunkenness.

However, I think we ought to consider a few things here:

1) Where did these young people, raised in fundamentalism, learn to make emotional decisions?

2) Is freedom the cause of their alcoholism, or is their rebellion and lust the cause?

3) In the case of some who might have fallen/stumbled into drunkennes without the original motivation of rebellion, what role does the lack of training in the proper use of freedom play? Why don’t fundamentalists train these young people in the proper USE of freedom instead of encouraging abstinence from freedom?

Finally, as far as rethinking every individual prohibition taught by fundamentalist, one by one, I don’t think the only reason that some do not do this is reactionary emotionalism. Some realize that the fundamentalist and the reformed approaches are, in some ways, different worldviews — when one accepts one or the other, certain things follow.

This article is titled “Calvinism” but it actually seems to be more about fads, movements, and young Fundamentalists. The answer is not that some young Fundamentalists can’t handle Calvinism, but to pursue and embrace right doctrine. If they truly can’t handle this doctrine, is the solution to avoid it? It should tell us alot about Fundamentalism, if Calvinism is it’s problem.

I don’t know any Spurgeonites, but I know lots of Calvinists. It seems to me if you’re so cool that you become eponymous, then yes, you do want people to follow the namesake.

What does Calvinism have to do with drinking? Was Calvin a thirsty theologian and all the adherents drink beer in order to follow his example?

eponymous… Hmm. I’m assuming your use is definition #1 below, although definition #2 seems almost apt in this context.

Etymology: Greek epōnymos, from epōnymos eponymous, from epi- + onyma name — more at name
Date: 1846

1 : one for whom or which something is or is believed to be named
2 : a name (as of a drug or a disease) based on or derived from an eponym

RD, you are a very witty person! It never occurred to me to apply #2 to this issue. But you brought up a very valid point: many people would consider Calvinism a disease! To others, it’s an area of friendly disagreement and not one to divide over. But to some, the topic is so intense that it is dividing. As far as I’m concerned, I can’t figure it out. I still haven’t figured out if I’m a Calvinist or not.

@”rd”:

I find myself wondering lots of things as I read stuff like what’s in this particular blog post. I’ll just list some of these random thoughts of mine.

1. “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” 1 Cor 10:23

This is “touching things offered unto idols.” I’m not sure it’s touching Steve Green or the fruit of the vine as it existed before the Welches came along. We may (and I do) criticize Steve Green’s music for other reasons (while still fondly remembering every word of “He Holds the Keys” and “Household of Faith”). Adult contemporary music is compositionally boring and trite; conveying the Word of God in song requires more. And we may (Pastor Bixby has done so persuasively, and I don’t) criticize the responsible use of alcohol in the context of American culture. But this text, according to the sensus literalis, is not talking about such things. It is talking about meat that has been consecrated unto a false god or gods.

And, believe it or not, I have a modern application! Through my work, I happen to know a Muslim who is a deer hunter. He offered me half of his kill once, and my first thought was: How do I answer him? Has this animal been offered to Allah? (Muslims are bound by particular rituals in slaughtering animals.) But this text answers that. We need not worry about exercising this “liberty” unless we are likely to “become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” My Muslim friend is very clear about my Christian confession and my thoughts about Allah and Muhammad. And there are no ex-Muslims in my life who would be offended at or confused by my use of the venison—meat that has been involved in the cultus of a false religion.

And I, speaking as one who was once fundamentalist and once Calvinist and is now a confessional Lutheran, see more interesting things in this text as pertains to Calvinism. In chapter 8, we are warned by St. Paul about the danger of abusing our liberty. What, exactly, is the danger that St. Paul mentions in 8:11 (viz. “brother,” “perish,” “for whom Christ died”)? And how does that square with the Reformed view of regeneration and the atonement? I know how I would have answered before—what the logic of the system required. I now have a different answer. :)

Hope you visit, please, our Reformed/Calvinist site and listen to some of our radio shows —- and comment. Below our “Mission Statement.” Thanks and God bless you all – and God does bless us when we obey Him…John Lofton, Editor, Recovering Republican.

Mission Statement
“For the nation and kingdom that shall not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” — Isaiah 60:12.

As Christians, we are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to teach all nations — including ours — to observe all things He has commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). This means bringing into captivity to Christ all areas of life and thought. This means destroying arguments that are against the knowledge of God (II Corinthians 10:5). In obedience to these commands of our Lord, this Web site is established. We covet your prayers for our success in obeying Him.

We are seriously concerned about, deeply grieved by and lament the fact that far too many of today’s so-called “Christian leaders” are a sinful embarrassment and are responsible for the cause of Christ being mocked and ridiculed. By being, first, cheerleaders for the Republican Party, they have dishonored their Lord and sold their Christian birthright for a mess of partisan political pottage. These individuals and organizations are Christian in name only, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” From such, it is added, we must turn away.

Secular, Christless conservatism — even when it is supposedly “compassionate” — will not defeat secular, Christless liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and, thus, predestined to failure.

More than 100 years ago, speaking of the secular, Christless conservatism of his time, the great Southern Presbyterian theologian, Robert L. Dabney, observed:

“[Its] history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.”

Amen! And what Dabney says has been proven with a vengeance in modern times, under recent Republican Administrations and Congresses who were supported enthusiastically by individuals and organizations who called themselves “Christian” but who, alas, when judged by their fruits, were not.

To those who will accuse of us of desiring and trying to bring about “a Christian America,” we unashamedly plead guilty though the accusation is far too modest and somewhat muddled. To be sure, we desire a Christian America, and a Christian world, a Christian galaxy and a Christian universe. And, over time, by His grace, we hope to demonstrate that all these things already belong to the Lord Jesus Christ because He created them all and they are His property. This is why all knees must bow to the Lord and all tongues confess that He is the Lord — because He is!

Jude 1:3 3

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (KJV)

Aaron D. Wolfe, you wrote, “But this text, according to the sensus literalis, is not talking about such things. It is talking about meat that has been consecrated unto a false god or gods.”

Wow! Thank you for clearing up gross misunderstandings I had about this passage. I thought that when God told Paul to write “all things” that He meant “all things.” But now I can see that that was not meant to be a statement of a principle, but to apply only to the eating of meat consecrated to idols. With this in mind, the passage should read, “Eating meat offered to idols is lawful for me, but eating meat offered to idols is not expedient: eating meat offered to idols is lawful for me, but eating meat offered to idols edifies not.” 1 Cor. 10:23

You’re right - that is *SO* much clearer! And further down in the passage, where he says, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” what he is really trying to say is “Whether therefore ye eat meat offered to idols, or drink meat offered to idols (meat smoothies?), or whatsoever ye do with meat offered to idols (I won’t even begin to try to image what Paul meant by that!), do all to the glory of God.”

So what is Paul talking about in the following two verses where he says, “Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved”?

He certainly couldn’t be making a broader application than just to eating meat offered to idols, I guess.

Thanks again for clearing up my thinking on this passage I had always understood to have broader applications, using the eating of meat offered to idols merely as an example of the many pagan practices that Christians can now enjoy, thanks to the doctrines of grace that free us up to please ourselves, without regard to the deleterious impact it could have on those who might experience saving grace, if they saw it evidenced in our lives that are now different as a result of having experienced saving grace ourselves. I guess, it’s “to hell with them” (quite literally, since we’re talking “sensus literalis” here) if they can’t see I’m free to do whatever I want, regardless of its impact on them?! Amazing grace, that!

@”rd”

What I’m arguing for is careful exegesis. St. Paul clearly states what his argument is “touching”—meat offered to idols. In fact, he considers three possibilities: meat at the market that was likely offered to idols; mystery meat at a feast put on by pagan friends or associates; and meat that is declared at such a feast to be offered (present tense) to idols. His answer to the first two is “don’t ask, don’t tell”; his answer to the third is “just say no.”

St. Paul offers two reasons to be careful here: consciences (that of the weaker brother in one case, and that of the pagan host in the other); and the actual practice of idolatry. We are to avoid the appearance of idolatry (the misunderstanding of the weaker brother or the unbelieving host) and we are to flee actual idolatry (participating in the act of offering meat to an idol). The latter is especially underscored with references both to “our fathers” and to the sacredness of the Lord’s Supper.

Context tells us what sort of “offense” St. Paul has in mind when he makes broader statements. Our jealous God also knows where meat comes from and Who owns the cattle on a thousand hills. And he graciously permits us latitude with regard to what we eat and drink, as long as souls are not harmed through idolatry. We are commanded to care more about souls than about filling our bellies with meat or about the social embarrassment we might face if we refuse to participate in devil worship.

What this text does not permit the exegete to do is to throw “offense” and “weaker brother” around willy-nilly. Neither the lite-pop that Steve Green uses nor wine that is for sale at the grocery store is offered to pagan gods. They are not the products of devil worship. As such, they are not connected to idolatry. To say that they are is to cheapen the strong words St. Paul uses in condemning idolatry. If we are to be faithful to the text, we cannot simply find something in our culture that we find “offensive,” then declare it to be a violation of 1 Cor. 8-10. And saying that our culture is “pagan” does not justify that interpretation—especially since, technically, it is not pagan. It may be hedonistic, it may be hostile to our Faith, but it isn’t pagan.

Now one could criticize using Steve Green tunes in church as a violation of “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” or “let all things be done decently and in order.” There’s plenty that Scripture has to say about drunkenness (“Be not drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit,” etc.). And using the doctrines of grace as a cloak for sin is specifically condemned by St. Paul (“Shall we continue in sin . . . ?”). In these cases, the sin is not idolatry. The presence of “whatsoever ye do” does not allow us to say that this text means whatsoever we want it to mean.

Aaron

Paul uses the same words in 1 Cor 6.12. This indicates he is offering a general principle of his teaching that is applied to the meat offered to idols question. You are being too narrowminded in your interpretation.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Pastor Johnson,

“You are being too narrowminded in your interpretation.”

I think Zwingli accused Luther of that at the Marburg Colloquy (re: “This is my body”)! Is history repeating itself?

But seriously, granting, of course, that 1 Cor. 6:12 exists, how does one go about interpreting it? Having located a “general principle,” how does one correctly apply it? Shouldn’t one first look to the ways that St. Paul applied it?

Mr. “rd,” who argues much like the fundamentalists I grew up with (by no stretch do I mean all fundamentalists) with his “Wow!” and his “enlightened ones,” and other dismissive non-arguments, throws out 1 Cor. 6:12 along with a list of other proof texts and the words “carnal” and “worldliness,” etc.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians is not a collection of proof texts or principles with a few examples. It is a specific epistle answering specific situations and questions; and of course, it is God’s infallible Word, to be read, applied, and obeyed by all churches. So to get at how the general statements are to be applied, we have to look at the specifics the apostle was addressing. And when we do so, I am arguing, we will find that “rd“‘s categories of “carnal Christian” or “worldliness” do not apply to those who do things that are lawful but not expedient.

“All things are lawful” can only apply to things that are lawful. It cannot apply to carnality or worldliness. To love the world is sin. To transgress the law is sin. On the other hand, going to court or eating meat is lawful, but not necessarily expedient, depending on the circumstances. Either one can be sin. We have to distinguish between that which is lawful but could harm genuinely weaker brothers or unbelievers and that which arises from “making provision for the flesh” or exchanging “love of the Father” for “love of the world.”

And lest you think that I’m straining at a gnat and being narrowminded for no good reason, notice what Mr. “rd” said: “Thanks again for clearing up my thinking on this passage I had always understood to have broader applications, using the eating of meat offered to idols merely as an example of the many pagan practices that Christians can now enjoy, thanks to the doctrines of grace that free us up to please ourselves, without regard to the deleterious impact it could have on those who might experience saving grace, if they saw it evidenced in our lives that are now different as a result of having experienced saving grace ourselves.” When is it ever right for a Christian to “enjoy” a “pagan practice”? That is precisely the idolatry that St. Paul enjoins us to flee. No one who is advocating the Doctrines of Grace is arguing that the liberty in which Christ has made us free gives us the license to engage in otherwise pagan (sinful) practices.