Ask Glen Anything | Live Q&A with Glen Scrivener 

Thanks for answering my question!

00:16:00 I also way raised in Calvinist culture, too. I also wince when I hear self-congratulatory statements.

No it is not ok to say, I am proud of what I have achieved, because the scriptures that you have recited are speaking of someone else, I can say I see the good in you or I am proud of you because I am not speaking of myself, humility remains humble, the issue Boydie has is that he, recognises one should not be proud of oneself in this he is right, but the issue he has is that it grates him, he should find peace in all things, I am not proud of what I have achieved, I am in Thanksgiving and praise to God of what I have achieved.

In answering the original sin question Glen said: "Life's not fair but with Jesus you get something which is better than fair". But this is clearly not so if original sin is true. First Glen says that life is not fair. But life is only not fair because God created a world in which he foreknew that everyone would become subject to inclination towards sin through no choice of their own. There is only injustice because there is sin (and not due to the choice of anyone except Adam and Eve according to those who believe original sin). Glen also says that "with Jesus we get something which is better than fair". But if original sin is correct doctrine then Jesus' death on the cross is ONLY his fixing up the mess he made in creating us all so that we are inclined towards sin through no choice of our own - except in the case of Adam and Eve - and Jesus. (Note that with original sin Jesus isn't the true bridge between God and man because he has absolutely no idea what it's like to be us - since he is born without a sinful nature). We come away from the combination of original sin and the cross with absolutely nothing conclusive being revealed about God's character. Glen also intimated that there is something Western - entitled - at questioning the justice of original sin. But this is not the case - there is nothing post-Christian about comparing our INTERPRETATION of God's actions and our INTERPRETATION of God's words to see if they align. The bible shows that while there are times when we have no right to judge God - specifically in a circumstance where he has a prior right to judge us (when he has revealed his holiness and we have not yet used OUR FREEDOM to be reconciled to it and his justice) there are times when it is not only possible but necessary to consider whether God's actions align with his words. For example consider Acts 10:34-35 ESV So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him". So reader you SHOULD be confirming that what you believe about how God has acted conforms with what he has revealed to you in the bible about his character. (Note too that this bible passage DESTROYS Calvinism - it shows that the idea that God created most people only so he could hate them eternally is primary false doctrine. But I digress). I suggest to you Glen that your problem isn't that your knowledge of scripture leaves you believing that you are not allowed to make judgements about God's words and actions - but rather that you are having a problem with questioning The Gospel Coalition - in respect of both original sin and Calvinism. (Reader note that if Glen says he doesn't believe in original sin it makes him less of a poster boy to TGC (whose entire theological system - Calvinism - relies on a combination of original sin and total depravity). If this sounds gnarky let me assure the reader that my comments come after months of Glen being happy to discuss failings in the world church - but not in his own denomination - which is apostate - nor explain why he is remaining in the Church of England - and also after continuing in relationship with TGC even having been shown that Calvinism is primary false doctrine (see above). When explaining original sin Glen indicated that even though those subject to original sin never freely choose to sin they are still guilty. Yet Glen did not explain how someone can be guilty without the necessary knowledge and freedom to act in a way that makes them guilty. Glen believes that people inherit the guilt of their ancestor Adam. To believe this is to support some of the key ideas of Calvinism - since it amounts to believing that God predestined us all to become guilty - it doesn't matter that he did so via Adam - it only matters that he did. Consider that on top of this there are many evangelicals who believe that people become worthy of hell ONLY by sinning as a result of inclination towards sin. This is the most common belief of groups like TGC even though there is nowhere in the bible which says that the wages of sin is hell. This belief results in a good number of people thinking that gospel preaching is about saving people from hell (queue Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God") when it NEVER is - because people only become worthy of hell HAVING heard and rejected the gospel (unless they are someone who responded to God's love revealed in creation in a manner which shows they will never respond to the gospel if offered it - see 2 Thess 1:9 for the two groups of people who will be in hell). In the light of all the points I make here I believe it's appropriate to ask Glen to reply to this post with proof of the doctrine of original sin - to prove it he needs to show both a passage or passages from scripture which can ONLY mean that we come to sin by being born descendants of Adam - he must show that no other explanation for how we each come to sin is viable. It will involve Glen interpreting the following verses in a way that doesn't contradict original sin: Deut 1:39 ESV And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. How can we be sinful from birth if the bible says that children have no knowledge of good and evil? Ecc 7:29 ESV See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. In what sense are man made upright if they are both inclined towards sin - and MADE guilty of the sin that results from inclination without freely choosing to sin? And finally Glen would have to explain away the fact that the bible gives us a different explanation for how we all end up coming to sin: Rom 5:12 ESV Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned... The passage says that sin didn't infect people because they were born - but because they were living in a world in which sin existed in others.

In answer to the question of why God makes people suffer - if we draw on the answer given to the question about original sin - the reason we suffer is because God chose to make a world in which he knew Adam would sin and we would all inherit his guilt and inclination towards sin which would result in everyone sinning against each other - not due to anyone's free choice. After which God responds to that less than free choice we all make by INSTIGATING the fall of creation - subjecting creation to futility (see Rom 8:20) as a way to cause people frustration - suffering - in pursuing a sinful life they never chose to begin). And while all this is the case God then tells us that he is a God of compassion - that he cares about our suffering! What a completely ridiculous picture of God this presents. Why would anyone want to know this God - to accept this gospel? How is it that people are content with speaking these ideas? It can only be because they don't NEED God to be coherent - they must prefer attempting to reconcile incoherent principles instead of KNOW a God of unified character.