I've mentioned before how I believe Reformed/Evangelical legalists equivocate between happiness and joy in a way that destroys people's motivation and self-esteem. I'll briefly revisit that, and then propose a definition of joy that is distinct from happiness and helps put this teaching in perspective.
The sermons on joy seem to go in a definitional circle. First, joy is promoted as an essential of the Christian life [i.e. a legalistic requirement]. If you do not have joy, you cannot be a Christian, because the life of the Christian is a life of joy. Then, joy is juxtaposed with happiness [equivocation part 1] - that is, the non-Christians seek "happiness" [a fleeting emotion], not "joy" [which at this point is some ethereal, non-fleeting emotion and will never be defined] and that is ultimately a worthless endeavor. Examples of joy are given. People are described in terms indistinguishable from happiness. Paul sang in prison, martyrs sang while being burned, people work demeaning jobs with a smile on their faces. Examples are paraded of people who were not brought down by horrible circumstances The unstated definition of "joy" throughout is "spiritual, deep, non-fleeting happiness". This is then brought full circle by the reiteration that we Christians should experience joy in all circumstances, which as far as we can understand from the sermon equates to, "Christians need to "look and feel happy", no matter the circumstances." Sometimes there is even the claim that God provides harsh circumstances for the Christian to put us face to face with our lack of joy.
The conclusions are that: (1) joy is deep, emotional happiness, exemplified by a happy demeanor. (2) The church has no responsibility to encourage or create joy in us because the way to create joy is to put us face-to-face with our lack of joy. (3) We should not try to avoid or change joyless circumstances, other than find a way to divorce our emotions from our worldly circumstances.
My definition: Joy is an emotional response of being a valued member of a larger group.
I like this definition because it shows how the Reformed church misses it completely.
1) Our joy in Christ. We Reformed Christians are supposed to find joy in our relationship with Christ and God; however, the Reformed church destroys our sense of value. Yes, we are adopted heirs, whatever, but when it comes to value, the church shoves Total Depravity in our faces. Worm Theology is ultimately one that removes our joy by making our relationship with God one that is valueless. Yes, in a sense, we are not worthy. That is true! BUT! In Jesus we are MADE WORTHY! We can claim worth and value through Christ. The church blurs and ignores that message to maintain abusive control.
We should have joy in Christ, because we are a valued part of God's redemptive plan. He loves us and wants to overflow our lives so that our joy can flow into others. While I do believe that God can remove our joy in something that is replacing our joy in him, I don't believe that is a primary method, especially in a church/family system where shame and legalism are present. Imagine the story of The Horse and His Boy, but instead of Shasta, newly discovered son of the king and heir to the throne, being treated like royalty, the king says, I need to treat you like a slave so that you can find your own joy within. NO! He was treated like a slave his entire life, why would the king treat his son like that?
I'm not a fan of John Piper, who I think follows the same approach, but read a Neocalvinist rebuttal of Piper:
Do true believers, who have turned toward God in repentance, and come to Christ in faith, and know the joy of sins forgiven, seek after happiness? Of course not! They have been redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, adopted into the family of God, and know God as their heavenly Father; their names are written in the Lamb’s book of life; they are risen with Christ, and they seek those things which are above, for ‘their life is hid with Christ in God’ (Colossians 3.1-4). Believers are exhorted to ‘put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and holiness’ (Ephesians 4.24). The joy of serving the risen Christ is the greatest joy known to man this side of heaven. True believers do not seek after worldly happiness, for they know the blessings of their heavenly Father.
There is not one hint of value here, only legalistic duty and, quite frankly, the juxtaposition of happiness and joy (Do true believers ... seek after happiness?) suggests that the mere thought of Christians desiring happiness is evil. (Another equivocation, mind you, now happiness and joy are opposites!)
2) Our joy in the Church. The visible church is an organization that seeks to provide a place of growth and service for the individual Christian. The church should demonstrate and represent Christ's love to the world, but also to the individuals. We should receive joy as part of the church to see how God builds up his saints and how our individual gifts contribute and matter to the greater good. It is fundamentally joy destructive for Christians to be treated as unnecessary or unimportant or sideline observers in the church, yet this is a tenet of the Neocalvinist church where the "ministers" do the ministry and the laity obey their leaders and praise them at every opportunity.
This is also why authoritarianism is so tempting in the visible church. People desire joy and see their leaders as being joyful because they are fulfilling their ministerial call, so they want to be leaders themselves. We have a lot of people becoming leaders simply because the church does not value non-leaders. Not only that, but when non-leaders complain about a lack of joy, they are told that their relationship with God should be their source of joy and they are unrighteous to seek joy within the church - an equivocation, and unspeakably evil.
3) Our joy in the family. Our family is our closest bond and common purpose. The church should be encouraging parents to raise their children with joy - meaning that the children are valued, their purposes are valued and that they are an important part of the family mission. Instead, the church teaches a system of emotional and physical abuse where the children are taught that they are worthless and don't matter. Parenting books talk about breaking the will, they talk about the child being constantly at odds with God, they talk about the need to downplay their accomplishments and punish every infraction. Children are taught "I'm third" - God first, others second, me third - a message dripping with worthlessness.
So, why are we surprised that every RP generation is a lost generation. When we are, at every turn, beaten away from a sense of hope and purpose, and it is replaced with reminders of our own worthlessness and inability, it's not surprising that there will be many that will seek hope and purpose outside the RPCNA.
21 comments:
And, unsurprisingly, I found a juicy tidbit over at Gentle Reformation from pastor James Faris, who approvingly quotes Wilhelmus a` Brakel:
"Continually exercise faith in Christ, reflect upon truths pertaining to the atonement and God’s way in which he leads man to salvation, and put your trust in Jesus, leaning upon him. To entrust yourself to Him, without seeing Him or apart from any feeling, is the way that leads to joy (1 Peter 1:8)"
https://gentlereformation.com/2011/08/31/spiritual-joy/
Again, we see the equivocation. Is joy an emotion or not? Well no, not. But wait, there's more:
"Rather, one ought to refrain from unrighteousness, and, upon falling, arise each time again and immediately run to the fountain once more; this will time and again, quicken joyfulness. May the God of exceeding joy gladden you! Amen."
So, we see that the equivocation has deep roots. The result of seeking joy is "gladness" - an emotion. Hmmmmm. So, joy is not an emotion, but some deep seated spiritual thing that produces... an emotion.
And, if you read the article, and between the lines, you see again that it is legalism that somehow leads to joy, completely apart from any sense of value, and completely apart from any purpose. Obedience + right thinking produces joy. It's completely on us, and if we don't have joy, we are either disobedient or flawed.
To put in perspective the internal thought process vs. the externalities. Let's say you ARE the heir to the kingdom, but the king is off on a trip, and all the nobles, servants and peers tell you the king thinks you're a no-good worthless worm. They even use his own letters to you to convince you. Wouldn't that have some effect on your experience of joy? What do you think the king will do with those nobles and servants when he returns? Praise them? I think not!
Since joy is a fruit of the Spirit, it does no good for anyone to use their "authority" to try to shame it into people. I see joy as a deep, abiding optimism, closely related to trust and faith that God will work all things for good for His people. Whether it shows on a person's face or not is entirely subjective to observers. It can be easily faked by actors.
If you look at the Heaven's Gate cult members' final video, you will see the most "joyful" countenances I have ever seen. This was the result of a shared delusion.
Allowing no space for lament is not Spiritual. Judging by appearances is not Godly. Plainly, not caring when people are sad is unloving.
I had the misfortune today of hearing a sermon from a student at a Reformed seminary that was ostensibly about the love of God. The essence of the message was as follows: "You worthless worm! God didn't have to love you, but He chose to, and His love is everlasting. In fact, Jesus died because He loved you so much!" These points are all true, but they were made to the exclusion of everything else. (There MIGHT have been some passing mention about forgiveness, but it wasn't memorable.) In spite of their brevity, it took about 50 minutes to make these few points in full, plenty of time to have ALSO included a lot about being a new creation in Christ and being filled with the Holy Spirit so that we are progressively able more and more to escape our sin rather than be stuck committing it over and over, and being adopted as sons and daughters, heirs of His eternal kingdom -- you know, the sorts of things that produce joy in the soul and its emotional manifestation of gladness. But no, an exposition of the love of God amounts to saying that we ought to feel our sin deeply and personally and know that, in some abstract way, God's love exists and applies to us.
I am not used to hearing sermons like that. I pray that this young man will have an epiphany about what God's love really is BEFORE he completes his degree and is ordained to shepherd some unsuspecting flock. I gather that you had a steady diet of this kind of preaching when you were growing up, and the pain of merely IMAGINING the kind of spiritual despair that this would provoke is almost overwhelming.
I don't know what church you go to where this isn't the message. I've found few pastors in the RPCNA who aren't preaching this. Perhaps it's not as explicit as what you heard - maybe the rest of seminary training isn't about changing the theology, but how to wrap the theology with enough sugar so that it does the damage from the inside out?
I still believe that Reformed theology doesn't have to be depressing. The point of Total Depravity is that no one can earn their salvation. It's not a door into worm theology. The point of the gospel is not that God saves us because he wants to prove how great he is. It's not for his glory. That is a wonderful byproduct, but he already has the glory. He doesn't need more. He saves us because he LOVES US and wants to be in a relationship with us. Jesus died for us, not for a throne and a position. He already had that. He died for us because he loves us.
And that is what the RPCNA misses. Their god created the world and allowed sin to enter so that he could demonstrate (to whom, we might ask) his attributes in contrast to the lack of those attributes. Maybe you haven't heard that, but I've never heard anything different. Glory is the center, not love. God's love in the RPCNA, becomes a path to his glory.
"Jesus died for us, not for a throne and a position." This is such a great line. I think I might steal it. I would differ only slightly with your other point, by saying that God has saved us because it brings Him glory AND because He loves us, equally. He has done it because He cares about us as much as He cares about Himself. (I realize the point you were making was that the RPCNA totally misses this, making the love subservient to the glory, but it seemed relevant to put up the slight amendment that His glory was more than just a byproduct or a side benefit.)
As for the sermon, I had the thought while listening to it, "this is EXACTLY what Battered Sheep was talking about." I think I even said that out loud to my wife. Her reaction to the sermon was indignation, and we were both worried about how many people would be driven to despair by this kind of preaching.
I can't speak to what goes on in most RPCNA (or other NAPARC or even non-NAPARC) churches; I can only speak to my own experience as a Reformed Christian. But given that you were taught this regularly for decades, I praise God that He kept your mental and spiritual health from being wholly destroyed -- and Amazing Grace is the right name for what kept you from fleeing from Him altogether.
"because it brings Him glory AND because He loves us, equally."
I think this is a pretty bold statement and it lacks scriptural warrant. I will concede that I can't demonstrate that love is foremost before glory, but it concerns me because it sounds like the RP church talking through you.
Let me explain. Authoritarianism is focused on lordship and glory. Lordship is the implied obligation for us to obey our leaders, and glory/honor/respect is the implied obligation to defer to their opinions and hold them in high esteem.
As such, it would benefit the authoritarian church to highlight the attributes of God that generate that obedience and deference, and then twist/suggest that it puts those God has chosen to church office in a position that enjoys those benefits, even if to a lesser extent.
I doubt we will ever fully comprehend why God chose to create a perfect world, let it fall into sin and then subject himself to the limitations and sinfulness of that creation to save it. But I can't ignore verses like John 3:16 - For God so loved... and Heb. 12:2 "Jesus ... who for the joy set before Him endured the cross" and none come to mind that suggest Jesus suffered the cross to be glorified, but that may just be my memory.
I'm sorry I couldn't think of a shorter way than below to explain my thinking fully.
The tl;dr version: It's easy to throw the baby of "God saved us to glorify Himself" out with the bathwater of "that is, He saved us primarily to glorify Himself and be our lord and then committed his lordship to the leaders of the church, whom you must now obey as you would obey Him," but the two can exist separate from each other, and first has scriptural warrant.
What you're describing is (or sounds, anyway) akin to the annoying and sinful ability of people to say "Deus vult" when what they really mean is "Homo vult" or even "Ego volo." Or the impulse that led the Stuarts to insist on the divine right of absolute monarchy in England. Misguidance, selfishness, idolatry, blasphemy, call it what you will.
But the fact that "I will it" or "Man wills it" can be reworked into "God wills it" or that violence can be done to Romans 13.1-2 in order to force the conclusion that "Whatever I say, you must obey" -- neither of those outcomes needs to make us jettison "God wills it" or Romans 13.1-2 as legitimate truths, when they legitimately apply.
By analogy, the fact that "God saved us to glorify Himself" can be reworked into "God saved us primarily to glorify Himself and be our lord and then committed his lordship to the leaders of the church, whom you must now obey as you would obey Him" does not need to make us reject the statement "God saved us to glorify Himself" out of hand.
And so that's where I'm coming from with saying that it's appropriate to believe that God cares about us as much as He cares about Himself, that the reason He saved us is BOTH to pour out His love on us actively and personally AND to bring glory to Himself. As with other both-and doctrines (e.g. We are righteous AND we are still sinners; He is just AND He is gracious; He is completely sovereign AND we are completely responsible for our actions; He is one AND He is three), the important thing, at least as I see it, is to hold both parts and extol both parts, and not lose sight of one in favor of the other as if the two were incompatible with each other. (It's when you dismiss or greatly subordinate one to the other that disaster has not been left to chance, as you yourself have experienced.)
As to my Scriptural reasons for thinking that this is another both-and doctrine, I think you get the taste of both together most strongly in Ephesians 1:3-14 and throughout John 17, in both of which the Father sent Jesus to die -- and Jesus came to die -- BOTH directly out of His love for us AND directly for the purpose of glorifying God. It also shows up scattered about the other Passover and pre-Passover sections of John (most notably the combination of 12.27-28, 13.1, 14.31, and 15.8-11). I think you also get it in the Benedictus in Luke 1 (especially verses 71-75) and Psalm 98.1-3.
There are, of course, plenty of other places that talk about Jesus being exalted and glorified BECAUSE of his suffering (Matthew 28.18, Isaiah 53.10-12, Philippians 2.8-11, Revelation 5.12-13), but I don't think those make the point quite as directly that God directly intended Jesus's suffering to result in His glorification.
I'm not sure whether this is particularly convincing, but even if we can't agree on this, I hope to at least clarify that my belief on this point is not tied to trying to support some sort of authoritarian mischief. Could it be misused or abused into that? Well, yes, obviously. Could it support that kind of nonsense if it were held in its FULL both-and sense, without added notes of pride or sanctimony? I think it's much less likely.
Also, let me add that my failure to include passages speaking to God's love as a primary reason for saving us arises NOT because I think it's less important but because you've already noted several of them yourself. My favorites that I would add are Romans 5:8-11 and especially Galatians 2:20.
I think you're missing my objection. I completely agree that the redemption plan is multi-faceted. I see love and joy both as purposes and also glory.
In the same way, we are told to obey out of love and we are told to obey because we will store up treasure in Heaven.
My only quibble is when you say "equally". I don't think there is enough evidence to dig into the motivations of the Trinity more than saying, yes, love; yes, joy; yes, glory; yes, justice.
And I would go so far as to argue, although it may very well be our cultural baggage being expressed in the translation, that glory is somewhat a secondary purpose. For example, Ephesians 1, the wording seems to be that glory is a result of God's adoption, will and ability to redeem, rather than the driving force. But, as I said, I will concede that the force might be in the original, but toned down because glory-seeking doesn't sound righteous to our Western ears.
And, also yes, I will say that much of the damage of the RP church is in emphasis rather than outright rejection. Worm theology is not factually incorrect, but is incorrect in emphasis. The point of justification and adoption is, sure, you were once a worm, BUT NOW YOU'RE NOT! That has been a consistent struggle with RP sermons. Why does every sermon highlighting the wonder and majesty of God have to start by dragging our faces through the mud? Secondly, how can we grow as Christians when no sermons start from the baseline of us as justified and adopted? We, as Christians no longer have a heart of stone that is at enmity with God. We have a heart of flesh that desires to love and serve, but remaining sin baggage that we are working to rid ourselves of.
Okay, then I think we are pretty well on the same page. Your point about "I don't think there is enough evidence to dig into the motivations of the Trinity more than saying, yes, love; yes, joy; yes, glory; yes, justice" is well-taken and extremely well-made. I tend to think of God as doing all things in the fullness of His infinity -- and therefore expressing all His attributes in all components of His works "equally" -- but being pressed on the point, I'm not even sure exactly what I mean by that nor that it's a point that He actually teaches us in Scripture. I DO think He teaches us that He has multiple reasons for saving us, and I also think it is essential to keep all of those reasons in view. But I ALSO begin to think that that was really the only point I SHOULD have made in the first place.
"Worm theology is not factually incorrect, but is incorrect in emphasis. The point of justification and adoption is, sure, you were once a worm, BUT NOW YOU'RE NOT!"
Amen!
"Secondly, how can we grow as Christians when no sermons start from the baseline of us as justified and adopted?"
Given that Protestantism has always had to defend itself from the charge that, if justification is perfected, then sanctification becomes unnecessary, I can understand how worm theology (if divorced from the authoritarian corollaries that can be drawn from it) can be well-motivated: it seeks to motivate sanctification. The problem is that it does so by constantly questioning or downplaying certainty of justification. Even when the motives are pure (i.e. we really want our sheep to become more holy, and we think this is the best way to do it), this is an extremely graceless and horribly damaging approach. When it is harnessed in the service of ulterior pretentions to power, then it becomes particularly pernicious, nasty, and unconscionable.
The usual alternative is to teach that the increase of sanctification arises out of the love, thankfulness, and relationship that is built between God and us as we are filled with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if sanctification is missing, it's a reasonable sign that the love, thankfulness, and relationship -- i.e. the outflowings of a changed, justified, Spirit-led heart -- are, too. The motivation to grow in sanctification comes from remembering the extremity of God's kindness and the love He has for us, NOT from doubting that He loves or has been kind to us at all.
I will allow that questioning justification is appropriate SOME of the time (e.g. a professed believer clings obstinately and publicly to clear and obvious sins), BUT to make it the ONLY approach and apply it ALWAYS to EVERYONE is to drive most people into despair, wreck, and ruin -- even when you're not also exploiting that despair to for your own selfish ends.
I think we're agreed. "Given that Protestantism has always had to defend itself from the charge that, if justification is perfected, then sanctification becomes unnecessary"
This has a deep history, at least from a Ligonier church history video series. Some pope way back when (400's?) said that if "faith alone" is sufficient then people won't act like Christians, so he pushed the salvation = "faith + works" - probably not the first foray into legalism, and definitely not the last.
So, yes, "worm theology" is just another manifestation of the "faith + works" styled legalism. But because "works" can't be explicitly stated in a Reformed church, it comes in the back door of an implied obligation to demonstrate our thankfulness and worthiness. At least I think that's the point.
And this is hearsay, but an elder told me that seminarian sermons were always vetted by professors before they were allowed to be preached in a congregation. If that is the case, worm theology is RPTS-approved.
What is refreshing is that in my new church, which is also Reformed, the pastor took a different approach. Let's say that given our discussion, there is a "carrot-and-stick" possibility. The RP church likes to focus on the stick - people are motivated by being whipped with their inadequacy, flaws and sin nature. They are whipped by being unfavorably compared with Biblical figures or notable saints. All with, at best, the motivation that this will produce a repentance and turning.
On the other hand, my pastor takes a decidedly carrot approach. He acknowledges that some pain in our life is the gentle nudge of the Spirit. But, when he talks about saints of old, he takes a different approach. George says that he focused on this discipline, and see how greatly his life was blessed through the outworking of that. Isn't that something you'd like to see in your walk?
For example, he talked about Brother Lawrence. When given the task of washing dishes, he decided he would rather "wash dishes in God's presence than without." So, he practiced being mindful of God's presence even doing the mundane things. Supposedly people would come to see "washing dishes in the presence of God". The point being that this is a discipline we can pursue, and through that discipline, we can experience joy even in mundane circumstances.
The other pernicious thing about worm theology is that it may apply "ALWAYS to EVERYONE" but not quite equally when it comes to the ordained. In a sermon (on SermonAudio) an RP pastor said that our own personal spiritual activities don't count as much as sitting under the preaching, because our personal spiritual life is flawed, but preaching is "the Word of God". So, somehow there is a spiritual force-field around RP preachers that prevents them from teaching error.
They sure do invest their positions and services with a lot of magical thinking.It's downright delusional.
I think a lot of the RP/NAPARC doctrine makes sense if you start from the position of a Narcissistic/Authoritarian god. Small example, Westminster documents do not acknowledge abuse. It's a big miss - UNLESS - the modus operandi of authorities is a passed down Narcissistic/Authoritarianism.
If you follow the logic, it's basically nothing to see, move on, if an RP pastor abusively claims divinely inspired sermons. If they're divinely inspired, good. If they're abusive lies, that's fine, too because the church does not recognize abuse as a problem.
Thank you so much for this article. Worm theology has hurt me so badly. It paints such an evil false picture of God as this narcissist who can't bear the thought of His children having ANYTHING emotionally, who just wants to take all positive feelings for Himself and leave us with nothing, just like my narc egg donor did to me through my childhood. Many church leaders do it purposely, out of an evil desire to be above others and control others and dehumanize others for the sake of their own ego. Many others do it simply out of gross ignorance and privilege, having never truly known and understood abuse. For those who do it out of ignorance, who simply don't know better, I pray they get a good lesson in empathy and LEARN better, and I pray it happens soon.
expreacherman.com
Indeed the problem in RPCNA is emphasis. All that’s needed to defile the Gospel is a change in emphasis (of course, it continues to go awry in the wrong direction quickly as a result of the emphasis).
As for joy, Joy is a fruit of the Spirit. I’ve never been a valued member of mostly anything, but my joy in the Lord persists. Does that relinquish the duty of the group (a given church) to treat me as they should in Christ? Heaven forbid! Joy in the Bible is a fruit of the Spirit that comes with being in the family of God, and is deep and abiding. It’s not the same as happiness. Yes, I may be unhappy for sure in a group that is unloving. Many ‘theologians’ have twisted the word, perhaps for their own benefit, but our definition shouldn’t change because theirs did- the churches are caught in an endless back and forth with themselves and the culture, a series of reactions and reactionary theology, when our focus needs to stay on Christ. The RP church says keep your eyes on Jesus, but they mostly push you to consume any literature but the Bible, and trust in them instead of Jesus. I think staying focused on Christ means responding only to Him and His Word, not the outside culture and not the unhealthy church culture and it’s man made distinctive.
God literally calls Jacob a worm in Isaiah 41:14.
38:1-2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" 39:1 “Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?" - If you are like a worm, and don't even understand animal reproduction, I don't think you should be questioning God's opinions on the lowly status of man.
Hermeneutics is the ability to interpret scripture. English grammar has a concept called a "simile". You can look that up, but a simile is making a comparison. It has a companion, metaphor. So, when Jesus says "Go tell that fox [Herod]..." He is not saying that Herod has reddish fur and a tail. He is saying that there Herod has fox-like characteristics.
So, when God calls Jacob a "worm" in Isaiah 41:14, is God saying, "therefore, 'worm theology'"? Well, no, if you look at the context, it seems that the analogy God is using is not "worthless", but "easily trampled". It's in the context of Jacob looking around at their strong enemies and fearing destruction. God is saying, "Jacob, you're easily trampled, but what I will grant you is strength and victory". In Job, God is responding directly to Job's accusations. Job says, I am just and God is unjust. God turns that around and says, by what standard do you judge me? My ways are higher than your ways and if you understood that, you wouldn't accuse me.
However, to your apparent point, making a theology out of two verses of scripture isn't exactly "systematic" in any sense of the word. It smells of "I've been taught worm theology and now I have to find some prooftexts." That's the definition of eisegesis - "an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text".
How do you interpret that alongside other verses like, "He predestined us to adoption as sons and daughters through Jesus Christ to Himself ... In Him we also have obtained an inheritance ... I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints" (Eph 1)
"Therefore there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus. ... For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons and daughters of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons and daughters by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him."
Worm theology is what Jesus speaks of in Matthew: "And they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as their finger." Worm theology goes beyond Total Depravity, which is talking primarily about our state of sin, but when Jesus forgives our sins, we're adopted. Worm theology says, "but even being 'saved' isn't enough, God really thinks you're despicable and is looking for an excuse to strike you down."
I'm not questioning God's opinion. I'm questioning YOUR opinion. Are you saying that you ARE God or are you saying that you speak prophetically and authoritatively for God? You seem very presumptuous.
Also, my name is not "Jacob" and my name is not "Job".
Post a Comment