Blog

Do any of you remember the 90s show Seinfeld? Well there was one episode where Elaine has a "Christian" boyfriend Puddy. Elaine is deeply troubled because he does not seem bothered by the idea that she is going to hell. He says "You are the one going there, not me." She says "David, I am going to hell, the worst place in the world with devils and those caves and the ragged clothing" Puddy says "Pretty rough" and so she begins hitting him and says "you SHOULD BE trying to save me." Puddy says, Don't boss me, this is why you are going to hell." Elaine: I am not going to hell, and if you think I am going to hell YOU SHOULD CARE that I am going to hell, even though I'm not."

If you have been paying any attention, there is a great deal of political and media-inspired moral outrage from certain segments of our society toward theological conservatives regarding their core beliefs about marriage. What lies behind today's cultural phenomenon is that traditional views about marriage are now considered sinful and immoral. Proponents of traditional marriage are frequently shouted down, mocked and marginalized even before they have the opportunity to express their views.

But no one should miss the irony: this moral outrage is coming from so-called relativists who originally prided themselves of having rid the world of all dogma, sin and heresy. But as soon as a person begins telling other people how they ought to (and ought not to) behave and think, then you are speaking as if you really do affirm an objective, universal morality (which is morally binding for everyone). So which is it? Do relativists believe everyone's beliefs are equally valid or do they believe that some ideas are truly better then others? If better, then they are appealing to a real moral standard as if one existed outside of ourselves. If you cannot demonstrate the objective existence of this standard that is binding on everyone then their moral outrage at our position is both absurd and contradictory.

If someone says, "but you are getting in our way of what we want" then it demonstrates that this is no longer about right and wrong but simply about wanting raw power. Relativists put on their "Tolerance" and "Coexist" bumper stickers but can't seem to get along with anyone unless they agree with them.  Must everyone agree with relativism? To claim everyone OUGHT TO believe in relativism is to deny its very existence.

Visitor: It is interesting that faith is not mentioned in the five points of Calvinism. Faith is actually downplayed and not considered necessary to salvation in Calvinism, because it is instead based on unconditional election and irresistible grace! If regeneration precedes faith then the formula would be regeneration, then faith, then justification! Illogical!

Response: this statement of yours is simply disinformation. Reformed theology is much broader than simply the five points of Calvinism. Among other things, of equal importance, the Five Solas also find their source in Reformed theology (Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria). Those of us who are Reformed in theology affirm that when we declare the gospel that we must call all men to faith and repentance in the message. It is a summons to repent and believe:

I read a comment on an online message board which made the following assertion:

VIsitor: Since *God* killed them for thoughtcrime, so can *WE*. Your idea is the same as tyrants throughout history, including the present day. With the identical argument with hate-subject substitution you get the Holocaust over Jews, Orwell’s Inner Party over the Proles, Mao’s Red Guard over the peasants, the Khmer Rouge over the educated, Islamic fundamentalists over Western Civilization. Just have enough of a sliver of moral decency to admit it: you want to kill anyone who believes differently than you do. And don’t give me sophistry as to why it’s okay for *your* group to mass-murder but not others because you’re not the same as they : “A difference which *makes* no difference *is* no difference.” — William Blake and Alfred Korzybski, separately.

Response: Thank you for your comment.  There are 2 things that I would like to respond to regrading the assertions you have made..

1) You said, "Since *God* killed them for thoughtcrime, so can *WE*"

No we can't ... we don't want to kill anyone for thinking differently than we. We are broken, sinful people and need grace just like everyone else.  As for the Khmer Rouge, Holocaust, Red Guard, and Islamic fundamentalist comparisons, you have it backwards. It was the Canaanites who were carrying out the halocaust.  God sent the Israelites to destroy them specifically because they were molesting their children and burning their children alive in fires. This was God's judicial sentence for years and year of unrepentant atrocities. Your view assumes the nation of Israel is like the Nazis, Pol Pot, ISIS or Mao’s Red Guard, when it is clear that the Canaanites were the ones like Pol Pot.