Monday, January 31, 2011


Galatians 5:12   I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
Galatians 5:12 was posted in reflection on a letter John Newton wrote which addresses on how Calvinists should be meek in witnessing. My point is: Being bold against a TOPIC should not be lumped as being rude to a person. We can say Mormonism is heretical without being rude to a Mormon. We can say Freemasonry is a lie without being rude to Freemasons. It is a fact that praying to Mary is wrong, just as drunkenness, lying, drugs, sloth, greed is wrong.

Newton is upfront that haughtiness in Calvinism is wrong, I can't tell Newton, "Now Newton, be meek now." when he is merely being truthful in telling us that haughtiness is wrong. I am sure he is insistent in his point, there is no compromise when he comes to exposing haughtiness. Man's ability is just as wrong as haughtiness. Conditional Election is just as wrong as pride in Calvinism; Unapplied Atonement is just as needful for correction as brash theology; etc. So sometimes people blur a unwavering theology as a sign of being rude, or a public insistency against a doctrine as being mean...yet Newton's own letter has an unwavering positon in what he asserts, and it is now a public insistency for what is asserted; and so likewise I have no problem with being unwavering against Arminianism and being publicly insistent on the errors of the system...Newton has done the same thing, just on a different subject matter.

If that letter is misapplied to Calvinist then Calvinist can return the notion to Newton, which is to silence Newton too. If that letter is properly seen as firm and public in it's purpose, then likewise it supports Calvinist being firm and public in their purpose to adominsh the system of Arminianism. Rick Warren will insist to me that his ministry is fine, and likewise I will insist that his ministry is not fine, both are insistent, both are I find it unfair to portray plain speech and forthrightness as "fleshly". John called men objectively a brood of vipers, and we can do the same, without being counseled to be a docile, passive wet-noodle.

So I think it is improper to push for more moderation, when the issue is not about delivery, but content, and content must never be in moderation; The blue lights are blue lights, the speeder may get mad and call them mean blue lights, but they are on, and his frustration is not really with the blue light itself as been "delivered" for that is nominal, but he is angry at the "insistent meaning" of that delivery. The cop will not turn off the lights, and finds no reason to tell the lights to "tone it down" when the lights are merely "constant in meaning" never "brash"; Whatever Newton's letter means, it cannot mean that we turn off the blue lights, just to make the speeder happy, but that is how many people seem to apply that letter. Gal 5:12 is an unwavering view, don't accuse Paul of failing to be meek in his adamancy, and many are unwavering in TULIP, and should not be falsely accused of failing to be meek in that adamancy. (yes, there are rude calvinist, but there is still a danger of confusing all insistent theology is thereby innately rude-- which is not true.

So that was the context of me posting this verse.