I stand corrected.
Jesus has spoken to us that God has ordained oil for all our energy needs. To reject the gift of oil is to reject the gift of God’s salvation as revealed to us in these last days by Jesus Christ. To question the gift of oil is to question God’s will as revealed through His prophet Jesus. All hail God’s glorious word as the words of Jesus are revealed to us through His mouthpiece Michelle McGinty.
But I meant no attack on the glorious elect Michelle McGinty. I revere her every word. As elect of God, Michelle McGinty makes no error.

Where would Jesus drill?

Thanks for proving my point, guys.

I am not a guy. I am a mother of two adorable babies of my own.

Michelle, as posters here have pointed out to each other, you seem to believe any “attack” on you proves you are right and any disagreement with you is an “attack.” You would seem to limit acceptable responses to complete agreement with you or caricatures of complete agreement with you. Fuzzy, I hope, is presenting a caricature of her beliefs. Rob is asking a legitimate question you haven’t answered.

You’re in the wrong business if you are expecting no disagreement. Especially if you view disagreement as an ‘attack’.
I’m waiting for the inevitable ‘Jesus said we’d be persecuted’. *chuckle*
If disagreement with views is an attack, I get attacked all the time, because MY views are a very small minority.
Fortunately for my ‘sense of martyrdom’, I restrict my definition of ‘attack’ to, oh, things that could actually cause damage. Which doesn’t include internet based dissent.

She’s justified in saying “attack”, because the tone you guys use is FAR more shrill and confrontational than is necessary or usual.

OK, maybe it is because it is Wednesday and I am simply not getting this. Please explain the connection between the somewhat amusing comment about The Elect drilling for Oil as a sign of God’s blessing and the reading from Hebrews.
Regarding oil – I knew a guy who said, when he was a kid on the coast of Maine they could tell the rich kids from the poor kids. The rich kids had balogna in their sandwiches at lunch, but the poor kids had to eat whatever their dads caught in the coastal waters. That meant the poorest kids ate the bottomfeeding “bugs” for lunch – these days they are also called lobsters. Until only 100 years ago (or less) oil was a pollutant, not only of no worth, but actually an evironmental hazard. Only since the development of the internal combustion engine has the black slime had any value. Like the lobster in my example, oil was what poor rural desert dwellers had to deal with. Now it makes the Kings! So once we shuck our addiciton to oil we can move on to better, more efficient vehicles – and less balogna.
So do the elect get balogna sandwiches in their heavenly picnics?

“She’s justified in saying “attack”, because the tone you guys use is FAR more shrill and confrontational than is necessary or usual.”
That is just not true. Again and again I see Michelle getting defensive over comments that are made that are merely a disagreement with her opinion.

Why all of the hate for reformed theology (election) and Calvin? Perhaps it is the western view of “free “will” (which has no Biblical support) rearing its ugly head?
Paul

“See? Yet more silly attacks on my view of Christianity just because the commenter doesn’t agree with me on the subject I posted.”
i guess i’d be more sympathetic if you held the same regard for others’ views of christianity and others’ deeply held convictions. you’re awful quick to throw up some scripture based on your view in order to blast someone else’s.
cry us a river, babe.

“cry us a river, babe.”
Not crying, babe. Just pointing out the truth and the fact that I knew it would happen. You guys are pretty predictable.

“That is just not true. Again and again I see Michelle getting defensive over comments that are made that are merely a disagreement with her opinion.”
Sorry but you guys don’t know how offensive you sound. And it’s not just me. Susan has commented on it. Other commenters have commented it on. My dad and my husband are shocked by some of the things you guys say. In fact my husband is convinced the commenters want to drive me off the Internet. He calls them brown shirts.

“I am not a guy. I am a mother of two adorable babies of my own.”
I use the word “guys” for everyone, including my daughters. My 12 year old says the same thing (“I’m not a guy I’m a girl”)

OK, here’s my view on “attacks.” I consider the comment that I blogged about an attack. It’s an ad hominem attack because it addresses who I am (a Christian) and not the point of the post. My view as an elect had nothing to do with the original post, it was a gratuitous attack.
“I’m waiting for the inevitable ‘Jesus said we’d be persecuted’. *chuckle* ”
If you knew anything about this blog, you would know how ludicrous your comment is. I know what real persecution is and this isn’t it. Persecution is where they burn you alive because you worship God, persecution is where they throw you in jail and starve you to death just because you believe that Jesus is Lord. Real persecution is when cut down with a machete because you shared you love of Christ with others. I could name hundreds of ways that Christians have been tortured over the years for their belief but having commenters ridicule my belief wouldn’t be one of them.

In fact my husband is convinced the commenters want to drive me off the Internet. He calls them brown shirts.
That’s a pretty silly remark by him, to be honest, particularly when you consider what the real brownshirts did.
Critics =/= Nazis. They’re not even close to the same thing. Anyone who believes otherwise is seriously reaching. In fact, please read up on Godwin’s Law to see why such an analogy fails on the Internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
I know I personally don’t care if you blog. That’s your business. What I care about is if your posts actually have a point other than just cheap political nonsense that I can find elsewhere.
As for the Reformed Theology post, I’m still trying to wrap my head around the fact that Calvinism is alive and well, so I thought that post was interesting. I’d assumed Calvinism died out centuries ago with the Puritans, so the fact that it’s still around is fascinating to me even if it’s a complete 180 from the Catholicism I was raised with.

Yeah, after I posted the comment I realized that someone would be linking to Godwin’s Law and making just the comment that you made.
“I’d assumed Calvinism died out centuries ago with the Puritans, so the fact that it’s still around is fascinating to me even if it’s a complete 180 from the Catholicism I was raised with.”
I guess you’ve never been to South Korea or parts of Africa then because it’s huge there. There are huge Presbyterian mega-churches in South Korea. I bet half the students at Westminster are South Korean.
You might want to get out more.

You know, I was trying to be nice to you by saying that I found your post about the Reformed theology interesting.
I haven’t heard much of anything about Calvinism since reading “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” back in high school, and I graduated almost twenty years ago. Excuse me if I haven’t been paying attention to it since then. I’ve had my own spiritual journey to travel on and am not obligated to know everything about every denomination out there.

“Excuse me if I haven’t been paying attention to it since then. I’ve had my own spiritual journey to travel on and am not obligated to know everything about every denomination out there.”
Sorry, but since you commented on it, I thought I would help you out with some information since it’s much bigger than you realized. And I certainly didn’t realize that you were “trying to be nice.”

You might want to get out more, too, Michele. Maybe then you’d realize that your “brand” of Christianity (Five-Point Calvinism) is regarded as a heresy by the vast majority of orthodox (with a small “o”) Christians, and rightly so. The doctrine of limited atonement, to name but one of your core beliefs, makes a mockery of Christ’s sacrifice, which was for ALL, the entire world, not just those consider themselves the elect, and makes a monster of God the Father, who hates nothing that He has made and would certainly never create human beings with the express purpose of predestining them to damnation–whatever your TULIP brethren may say.
As for “attacks,” you make plenty of them yourself (the Episcopal Church is apostate? Remember saying that a day or two ago?) and if you don’t expect people to fight back, you ought to get off the internet and go preach to the choir.

the fact that Calvinism is alive and well
Let’s not get carried away, LJG.
even if it’s a complete 180 from the Catholicism
If the reform is that radical, it’s an entirely new breed. I wouldn’t trust anyone who sees it in those terms.
I suspect the shock for people is, well, here’s a church with a mainline name – “Presbyterian” – that’s conservative, not liberal like the rest of mainline Protestantism.
How is the average visitor here, without a personal interest in denominational particulars, to be expected to know Tenth Presbyterian, from Redeemer Presbyterian, from a S. Korean mega-church? I have an interest, a long-standing one, but the same handful of doctrines stick in my craw, time after time. I can’t make it all wash.
So, get (more) comfortable being misunderstood.

(that was me, on my laptop, sorry to post anonymously)

Believe me, I only wish it were ridiculous. I have, on various boards, heard more than once that such things as disagreeing with a person’s position, a person having to even so much as be exposed to the idea that other beliefs exist, and my favorite, that other people aren’t being compelled to greet people by the name of their holiday is either being persecuted, or a ‘war’.

YellowdawgNC: Maybe then you’d realize that your “brand” of Christianity (Five-Point Calvinism) is regarded as a heresy by the vast majority of orthodox (with a small “o”) Christians, and rightly so.
Paul: Um, so Biblical theology is determined by the vote of the majority? you know, at one time the majority also thought the earth was flat.
Can you demonstrate how the Doctrines of Grace are heresy?

In a sense, Biblical theology IS determined by the majority. That is what tradition is. And centuries of tradition passed on by millions of the faithful have held fast to the teaching of the Apostles, plainly set forth in Scripture, that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, not merely “the few.” Anyone who reads the New Testament with an open mind with no doctrinal ax to grind will come away with the undeniable impression of that clear, unequivocal and glorious message.
If tradition and scripture were not enough to demonstrate the grievous error of this repugnant doctrine, reason tells us that a God who loves a suffering world enough to empty Himself into the form of a human being and subject himself to all the evil and pain that humanity both brings upon itself and must bear simply by virtue of being physical creatures in a fallen world, CANNOT be the same God who would create millions of human beings with the express purpose of damning them to eternal punishment.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/09/limited-atonement-great-heresy-t-he.html

Here’s another critique of Calvinism, this from a former Calvinist:
http://www.auburn.edu/%7Eallenkc/openhse/calvinism.html#Atonement
And, you’ll be glad to know Michelle, this is my last word on the subject. I apologize if my language has been overheated at times, but this is a subject about which I feel strongly.
I’m sure there will be plenty of heretics in heaven. (Just as there may be even more theologically correct people in the other place.) But I believe that God will stop at nothing to save all of His children, because that is the nature of love.

“Sorry but you guys don’t know how offensive you sound.”
That is probably true and I think that works both ways. You often don’t know how offensive you sound. The nature of relying on the written word to convey emotion I guess.

Yes, I would think that goes without saying.

Have to confess some very unsancified parts of my life, but any non-prejudiced person can see that the Bible teaches election. Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Matthew Henry, etc. were faithful to the Bible and logical.
Isn’t the spirit that denies God His predestination and election the same spirit that forbids children to learn that there are winners and losers in baseball games? So they remain children forever…
Dennis Prager told the story of being on a panel when a woman called in to berate the prominence of Israel in the Old Testament. To Dennis’ surprise, the Roman Catholic priest on the panel took the microphone and said “Lady, God chose the Jews. Get a life!”

yelladawgNC: In a sense, Biblical theology IS determined by the majority.
Paul: Um, no it isn’t. Biblical theology is determined by a faithful reading and proper interpretation of Scrpipture. We can have different interpretations, but Biblical theology, being the study of the knowledge of God, is not determined by the whims of man. Theology in general is not Biblical until it has been vetted by Scripture alone, and found either correct, or wanting.
yelladawgNC: If tradition and scripture were not enough to demonstrate the grievous error of this repugnant doctrine, reason tells us that a God who loves a suffering world enough to empty Himself into the form of a human being and subject himself to all the evil and pain that humanity both brings upon itself and must bear simply by virtue of being physical creatures in a fallen world, CANNOT be the same God who would create millions of human beings with the express purpose of damning them to eternal punishment.
Paul: No, we all justly deserve death and hell. In and of ourselves, we have absolutely nothing to recommend ourselves to God. He would be completely right and just to let all of us burn. However, by the counsel of His own will, He freely chooses to draw some to Himself, and demonstrate Grace and Mercy. The rest, He rightly rewards them according to their sin. you are making the mistake of thinking that we can create a situation that requires God save anyone. Even if we could fulfill ALL of the law for ourselves,(chich we can’t) we would only be doing what is expected of us, which is not enough to compell God to do anything on our behalf. A crisis on our part does not make an emergency on God’s part. Show me where your westernized view of “free will” is Biblical.

People assume that when someone agrees with Michele then they must also be Reformed Christians. So twice I’ve been hit with the ad hominem attacks she mentions which is pretty ironic considering I’m not religious. But I’ve a got a defense which she doesn’t have. :^)
Bascially I wouldn’t run a blog like this with the pay Michele is getting. So I give her credit for putting her ideas out there even when I disagree with them.
In general I think Michele is civil if she thinks you are to her, but I think once or twice I’ve been in the brick wall bucket. Or maybe my comment wasn’t provocative enough for an answer?
I have seen her use Psalm 14:1 on some other non-believers who went straight for the “There is no God” attack. Psalm 14:1 strikes me as an ad hominem attack, but Michele might not consider it as such.

Paul C, Quillman, I’ve made this point before but it seems to go over like a lead ballon. If there is no free will then aren’t people meat robots, or at least mentally ill? So why punish mentally ill meat robots? Especially when God would know up front the outcome of Adam’s choice.
I suppose God can punnish the mentally ill meat robots, but that seems rather pointless.

To Dennis’ surprise, the Roman Catholic priest on the panel took the microphone and said “Lady, God chose the Jews. Get a life!”
What’s the surprise, Tom, that the priest beat Dennis to the punch? Seriously.
Adult catechumens are called “the Elect” … and not because we selected ‘em.
I dunno, MH, anyone who’s been reading as long as me knows you aren’t Reformed. No offense.
In my experience, plenty of the slurs used here are so commonplace as to go unnoticed.

MH: If there is no free will then aren’t people meat robots, or at least mentally ill?
Paul: We do not have “free will”, and never will have “free will” as westen culture understand it. Adam and Eve had “free will” in the sense that they had the ability to choose to do good or evil. After the fall, all of mankind lost “free will”. I think that Genesis says that the heart of man is only evil always, and who can understand it. After regeneration (and salvation) we are enabled to choose good over evil. It will only be in the new heavens and new earth that we will have perfect free will, as Scripture defines it. Currently, our wills are tied to sin. Biblical free will is not about the ability to choose between good and evil, but about running th Jesus always.
What you have bought into is the “free will” of western civilization, which says “I can choose whatever I want”, but it is not Biblical.
We are not robots. We do have wills, and the whole of redemptive history is littered with humans resisting the will of God. However, Gods pursuing far outlasts our stubbornness. As I said previously, we sinned in Adam, and God still has every right to wipe us all out. However, it pleased Him to draw some of us to Himself, for His own glory. We have no right to presume upon God for anything.
Again, I ask, where does Scripture support the western civilization view of “free will”?

Paul Q. reminds us that, since the Fall, mankind has lost the ability to do good, while retaining the ability to do evil, requiring God to draw some of us:
John 12:32 – “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
Acts 17:26-28 – And he made from one man every nation of mankind … that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us …
After the Flood, God reiterates that “the intention of man’s heart is evil” (Gen. 8:21, cf. 6:5), yet swears off cursing, and basks in the pleasing aroma of Noah’s unsolicited offering.

“In general I think Michele is civil if she thinks you are to her, but I think once or twice I’ve been in the brick wall bucket. Or maybe my comment wasn’t provocative enough for an answer?”
Or Michele’s life interrupted answering questions and she had to abandon the thread (that happens quite a bit, btw — you guys are chatty cathys and it’s hard for me to keep up).
Ask the question here and I’ll try to answer it.

“Believe me, I only wish it were ridiculous. I have, on various boards, heard more than once that such things as disagreeing with a person’s position, a person having to even so much as be exposed to the idea that other beliefs exist, and my favorite, that other people aren’t being compelled to greet people by the name of their holiday is either being persecuted, or a ‘war’.”
I wasn’t talking about the Internet, I was talking about my position:
“If you knew anything about this blog, you would know how ludicrous your comment is.”
Your comment about my view was ludicrous given my position, not the position of others on the Internet.

Moonshadow, none taken. I’m glad someone is reading the stuff I write even if they have a different point of view.
Paul Q, the problem we’re running into is that from my point of view you are using scripture as an argument from authority. I need to see a logical progression of A implies B, B implies C, then A better imply C as well or things aren’t hanging together.
So when you say “we sinned in Adam” that creates a problem since we didn’t exist yet. If as Moonshadow claims that after the fall mankind lost the ability to do good, while retaining the ability to do evil, then our behavior is deterministic or at least seriously biased with regard to good and evil in your belief system. So the people alive after Adam didn’t really have the same chance as he did to choose properly and yet being all knowing God would know the outcome of Adam’s choice and create thix situation.
So this is where there’s a problem. From your point of view God is going to apply the same standard to everyone, but yet they didn’t have the same chance to choose properly. This seems incompatible with the concept of justice.
I realize from reading this blog that basically your point of view is that everyone deserves hell, but God is showing mercy in saving a few. But this seems to reduce salvation to winning a kind of diving lottery which also seems incompatible with the concept of justice.
BTW What I’m trying to do is understand a different point of view and explain why I don’t see things the same way. I have made some progress in the first goal, but I’m not so sure about the latter.

“Or Michele’s life interrupted answering questions and she had to abandon the thread (that happens quite a bit, btw — you guys are chatty cathys and it’s hard for me to keep up).”
Well that was my other thought, but that isn’t nearly as much fun as being actively ignored.
I’m engaging Paul Q with a similar line of reasoning in this thread. So if you find his thinking in line with your own then I’m good to go. If you disagree with him then I would be interested in learning how.

In the healing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:12-19), Jesus treats them all the same but one returns to give thanks to God.

“…winning a kind of diving lottery…”
Should read
“…winning a kind of divine lottery…”
Grr argh I hate typos.

“Well that was my other thought, but that isn’t nearly as much fun as being actively ignored.”
Sorry to disappoint
“I’m engaging Paul Q with a similar line of reasoning in this thread. So if you find his thinking in line with your own then I’m good to go. If you disagree with him then I would be interested in learning how.”
OK, I’ll take a look and let you know.

“John 12:32 – “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”"
Check out the context of that verse, you might be surprised by it.
Also how do you square your interpretation of it with this:
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Are you a universalist?

“Psalm 14:1 strikes me as an ad hominem attack, but Michele might not consider it as such.”
Why do you consider it an ad hominem attack, because the unbeliever is called a fool?