Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..

[ARMcCarley]

I'm not sure your plea to be respectful has had much effect, but thanks for trying.

I've been an attender, then member, of a reformed church for about 14 years. I disagree with some of their doctrine, specifically the limited atonement part, which is really like saying I disagree with TULIP as a whole, if you think about it. But I feel like while their orthodoxy is misguided, their orthopraxy is quite good. They hold to the Westminster Confession, which is also quite a good confession on the whole, except for a few things that don't seem to follow the bible, but rather follow the Calvinistic system of theology. Keep in mind, I'm not an expert on Calvinism, but I've sat under its teachings for 14 years.

From what I've observed, Calvinism emphasizes some parts of scripture over others--which is really the same thing everyone else does, too. I think AMR's thread link pointed this out about Bob Enyart's NOAH hermeneutic, which hermeneutic was an attempt to focus on a different part of scripture over others.

My conclusion after 14 years: our understanding of God's salvation is no more effective in saving us than our own righteousness is. And no matter what, the only thing that saves us is belief in Jesus Christ's real, physical death as the propitiation for our sins, and in his real, physical resurrection as the evidence of that salvation. After that, everyone will know we are Christians by our love, for God and for one another ("neighbor"). And if that doesn't show through, Jesus will say to us, "I never knew you".

Calvinism can't save you, just like Paulism or Apollosism or Cephasism can't save you. Was anyone baptized into Calvinism? Or Arminianism? Or Open Theism? If so, their hope is in vain. Even claiming the name of Christ is not sufficient. But calling on His name is, if done truthfully.

And I pray that these "debates" will result in all of us trying to find the right understanding of God's word, rather than just trying to convince others of our own dim understanding of it.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Matthew 23:37 states: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Could one of the brilliant Calvinists on TOL explain this verse, minus any free
will choice on behalf of the House of Israel?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Calvinism ought to be called, deformed theology.

 

[ARMcCarley]

Matthew 23:37 states: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Could one of the brilliant Calvinists on TOL explain this verse, minus any free
will choice on behalf of the House of Israel?

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."
Roman's 9:6-8

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."
Roman's 9:6-8

Your answer will not suffice. Does somebody else have a better
interpretation?

 

[ARMcCarley]

Your answer will not suffice. Does somebody else have a better
interpretation?

For you probably not

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

For you probably not

At least not you.

 

[patrick jane]

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."
Romans 9:6-8

 

[Clete]

What you just stated proves that you're just desperate. Seriously, I don't even have to reply to that LOL

I used YOUR form of argument! :rotfl:

And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.

Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

These are just some of the excerpts from all over the Bible, from Exodus to Revelation that brim with Calvinism.

What do you have against the whole spirit of the Bible, besides legal fictions from certain passages?

I told you he wouldn't answer the question!

Which fictions, Crucible? Which passages?

And just like the Bible, there you go treating Calvin just the same, conflicting the teachings :rotfl:

They are direct, in context quotes from Calvin. The references included with the quote. Anyone who wants to know which of us is lying can look them up in about 30 seconds.

Which of the comments are wrong? Which of them do you disagree with, Crucible?

He isn't likely to answer that question either since he pretty much doesn't answer any direct question. - His answer, if he were to give it, is, "None of them! I agree with them all!"

He's no different than any other Calvinist. I've got a whole thread on the subject here...

John Calvin said this....

The only people I've ever heard use that repeated statement are anti-theists.

Go figure.

Is that supposed to prove something?

Do you think that things are true just because you state them as fact?

In case you haven't put two and two together yet, I'm not at all attempting to convince you of anything! There's no convincing you of anything - ever! Your mind is broken! I'm using you! I'm doing it on purpose and with specific intent. You are the most powerful argument against Calvinism that there could ever be but you think otherwise and so will continue to give me (and others) one golden opportunity after another to demonstrate the insanity that is the intentionally mindless religion of Calvinism. Your alternative is to realize that my tactic is working and to stop posting. You choose! Oh, wait! You don't get to choose, do you?! God predestined that you'd be an antipositional pawn in my chess game!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Crucible]

Is that supposed to prove something?

Yes, it means that your desperation is plain.

I've read all of Augustinian and Calvin's works, and know the teachings like the back of my hand.
You don't- you've spent all your time resisting the mere concept to compensate for the failures in your theology, and don't recognize the spirit of what you are reading within their writings.

That's why all of you are against Reformed doctrine, really. It threatens yours and exposes the inconsistencies within them, most notably with the subtraction of God's sovereignty for human control where the Scriptures simply leave no room for that. It's subtle heresy that managed to live on with layman society and nothing more.

 

[Clete]

Yes, it means that your desperation is plain.

I've read all of Augustinian and Calvin's works, and know the teachings like the back of my hand.
You don't- you've spent all your time resisting the mere concept to compensate for the failures in your theology, and don't recognize the spirit of what you are reading within their writings.

You mean reading their own words doesn't prove anything about what they taught.

Which quote is wrong Crucible?

Which one conveys an idea that you disagree with even a little bit?

That's why all of you are against Reformed doctrine, really.

I was a Calvinist before I was an Arminian and I was and Arminian before I was an Open Theist. I believe what I believe because I've spent the time and effort to learn it myself. I am convinced by the plain reading of scripture and sound reason and nothing else.

It threatens yours and exposes the inconsistencies within them, most notably with the subtraction of God's sovereignty for human control where the Scriptures simply leave no room for that.

Really? No room? The highest Authority is all existence said this...

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;​

It's subtle heresy that managed to live on with layman society and nothing more.

How's this for subtle.

Your god, the stone idol of Calvinism, does not exist!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

Unless you want to re-write the dictionary. In my book and in the common tongue, 'cannot' = inability. I am sure that you can create a great theological edifice here and write a long analysis of it all. But it would only be self-justification. If we can't use the same dictionary, then communication is impossible.

When it comes to God, we must rewrite it to fit His character. "Nothing is too difficult for Me" means omnipotent. When scripture says God cannot lie, it isn't saying it is too difficult for God, but rather that He will not do it as His nature is its opposite. Thus, 'cannot' does not mean inability. It isn't a 'lack' in God that He cannot lie. That by necessity, means we must go beyond the dictionary to rightly discuss the character of God. Same dictionary? Should be, but not a common one, but rather a theological one.

 

[Desert Reign]

When it comes to God, we must rewrite it to fit His character. "Nothing is too difficult for Me" means omnipotent. When scripture says God cannot lie, it isn't saying it is too difficult for God, but rather that He will not do it as His nature is its opposite. Thus, 'cannot' does not mean inability. It isn't a 'lack' in God that He cannot lie. That by necessity, means we must go beyond the dictionary to rightly discuss the character of God. Same dictionary? Should be, but not a common one, but rather a theological one.

This was the original post I was commenting on.

There are many contradictions with open theism.

The notion that God can do anything is not necessarily true, with creating an agent that affects His will being one of them.

Simply put, if He created man in the way He willed, then man could never do anything outside of His will. He couldn't make something with less than a desired outcome because, since He would know beforehand the outcome would be undesirable, He would never set it to be that way in the first place.

So, there goes free will right out the window.

Separating omniscience and predestination is a complete fail. It is why I've said multiple times that Arminian theology contradicts reason.

Do you agree then with what this poster has said?

I can think easily of multiple issues of logic with the above.

Going in no particular order:

a) Since I am not an Arminian, and neither are open theists in general, and I do not hold Arminian beliefs at all, the final sentence, which appears to be a summary of and sets a context for the rest of the post, makes the entire argument a non sequitur, seeing as it begins in reference to open theists.
b) God creating an agent is by definition creating something that will affect God. That is what 'agent' means. Someone or something that acts. A person praying 'God why do the wicked prosper?' is acting. It is demanding a response of some sort from God. God does not have to respond but even if he does not, he still must choose not to. The existence of the agent has become a constraint on God. This is what 'agent' means.
c) An agent 'that affects his will' doesn't make the argument any better. There doesn't need to be any assumption that such an agent could change God's mind about anything. Its mere existence as an agent is a constraint on God. The poster seems to be under the nonsensical impression that there are two kinds of agent: agents that affect God's will and agents that don't. Worse, he assumes that this is commonly understood and agreed to.
d) the idea that God can 'know beforehand that the outcome would be undesirable' is a self-contradiction. Even your own notion of God being able to do anything but not being willing to do everything is in direct contradiction to this. If God only wills into being what he wants then nothing in his imagination could possibly ever be undesirable. The only way out for you is to assume, as this poster seems to do, that when God creates something, this entails different possibilities for the future. I can sure see you going along with that one.

Apart from the gross non-sequitur equating open theism with Arminianism, the whole argument amounts to 'I do not believe it was God's desire to create freewill beings, therefore, God could not have created them because that would have been against his desire.'

Is this what you support?

Because it doesn't sound any worse than your own argument:

but rather that He will not do it as His nature is its opposite.

Do you know what 'nature' means? You just said

we must rewrite it to fit His character

So you are equating character with nature (which is of course perfectly normal).

If God's character is unchangeable, how is that different from impossibility? If God is omnipotent by nature, how is that different from God cannot lie, like this in Heb. 6?

18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie,

Lon, You are making my point for me here, and I hope your abiity to distinguish between Arminians and open theists is better than this poster's.

 

[Lon]

This was the original post I was commenting on.



Do you agree then with what this poster has said?

I can think easily of multiple issues of logic with the above.

Going in no particular order:

a) Since I am not an Arminian, and neither are open theists in general, and I do not hold Arminian beliefs at all, the final sentence, which appears to be a summary of and sets a context for the rest of the post, makes the entire argument a non sequitur, seeing as it begins in reference to open theists.
b) God creating an agent is by definition creating something that will affect God. That is what 'agent' means. Someone or something that acts. A person praying 'God why do the wicked prosper?' is acting. It is demanding a response of some sort from God. God does not have to respond but even if he does not, he still must choose not to. The existence of the agent has become a constraint on God. This is what 'agent' means.
c) An agent 'that affects his will' doesn't make the argument any better. There doesn't need to be any assumption that such an agent could change God's mind about anything. Its mere existence as an agent is a constraint on God.
d) the idea that God can 'know beforehand that the outcome would be undesirable' is a self-contradiction. Even your own notion of God being able to do anything but not being willing to do everything is in direct contradiction to this. If God only wills into being what he wants then nothing in his imagination could possibly ever be undesirable.

Apart from the gross non-sequitur equating open theism with Arminianism, the whole argument amounts to 'I do not believe it was God's desire to create freewill beings, therefore, God could not have created them because that would have been against his desire.'

Is this what you support?

I was agreeing with you, but tweaking it to fit my understanding. It wasn't to interpose between you and ARMCarley at that point.

I'm not really correcting here, just giving more context concerning God's omnipotence. For our incomparable God, Lon

It was fairly random, but perhaps good in that your quote interested me, I just wanted to tweak it. It is more just thinking out loud, not as much debate or counterpoint, but rather just sharing ideas. If it is a distraction I'll bow out graciously. Not meaning to interrupt.

Because it doesn't sound any worse than your own argument:
Do you know what 'nature' means? You just said
So you are equating character with nature (which is of course perfectly normal).

Yep. Look: Nature: the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.
Character: synonyms: personality, nature, disposition, temperament, temper, mentality, makeup;
:think:

If God's character is unchangeable, how is that different from impossibility? If God is omnipotent by nature, how is that different from God cannot lie, like this in Heb. 6?

I think you say it here (again, using your's for good dialogue, not really arguing), God is omnipotent. It would seem He is not if He cannot lie, but that's the wrong point (again, thinking out loud). It isn't His power, so no lack. It is rather against His nature to lie, so He won't do it/cannot do it as something that isn't in His nature to do.

Lon, You are making my point for me here, and I hope your abiity to distinguish between Arminians and open theists is better than this poster's.

Yes, again sorry, I wasn't interposing, nor really arguing/debating. I'm trying to use your definition to hammer out mine better as well. It simply grabbed my attention. I suppose "inability" works, but I was merely caught in trying to express that more clearly. Thanks for taking a few moments (and reinventing the wheel, as this is already fleshed out). I'll bow out, but appreciate the input and glad that I was able to help make your point too. I think that was part of it too. We don't agree on everything, but this wasn't about that. Sorry my initial post (quoted above) hadn't conveyed that strongly enough, either that or that we disagree more often than not. This wasn't that.
-Lon

 

[Desert Reign]

God is omnipotent. It would seem He is not if He cannot lie, but that's the wrong point (again, thinking out loud). It isn't His power, so no lack. It is rather against His nature to lie, so He won't do it/cannot do it as something that isn't in His nature to do.

I suppose "inability" works, but I was merely caught in trying to express that more clearly. -Lon

Lon, thanks for your comments.

You said:

"Nothing is too difficult for Me" means omnipotent. When scripture says God cannot lie, it isn't saying it is too difficult for God, but rather that He will not do it as His nature is its opposite

So you are saying that omnipotent means 'nothing too difficult' but anything that's impossible doesn't qualify for 'nothing'?

In other words, omnipotence means God can do anything he wants/needs to do even though some things are impossible for him to do (as these are against his nature, such as break his own vow (Heb 6) or create a square circle (this is much the same thing as breaking a vow inasmuch as it just refers to doing something that is self-contradictory, as when the scripture says that God cannot deny himself)?

In more other words, that omnipotence has a context that needs to be understood and is not an absolute term?

Is this your belief?

 

[Lon]

Lon, thanks for your comments.

You said:
So you are saying that omnipotent means 'nothing too difficult' but anything that's impossible doesn't qualify for 'nothing'?

:think: I believe that's pretty close to it. I'll give more here in a moment just to make sure (bolded below, the rest is just commentary and expression of appreciation). Thanks for continuing to soundboard. A pedantic scripture at this point would have been helpful (and it likely exists).

In other words, omnipotence means God can do anything he wants/needs to do even though some things are impossible for him to do (as these are against his nature, such as break his own vow (Heb 6) or create a square circle (this is much the same thing as breaking a vow inasmuch as it just refers to doing something that is self-contradictory, as when the scripture says that God cannot deny himself)?

In more other words, that omnipotence has a context that needs to be understood and is not an absolute term?

Is this your belief?

Creeds and confessions have hammered this out better than I (more minds, working on it), but essentially I'm saying "God cannot lie" delves into His immutable character, rather than His omnipotence. His 'power' doesn't come into play and is not part of the question nor conclusion but I've seen a few on TOL discussing his omnipotence in such a dialogue so was trying to form and voice my objection (again having not a lot to do with you in particular other than I latched onto something you said because it better helped me express this thought). I had always tried to voice my disagreement on those conversations and perhaps I'm still not doing the best job yet. Putting a name to a thing allows me to go look up other's weighing in over the subject as well. So again, I appreciate you being a sounding board for this particular discussion of "what God can and cannot do logically, scripturally." That's the whole of my purpose here.

IOW, I think people most often misapply God's nature, vs God's ability, and thus often confuse the two after an illogical fashion. As I said, I'm trying to reinvent the theological wheel as I am sure I can find a creedal statement concerning this, confession, and scripture. Perhaps the groundfloor reworking doesn't serve as well, but this is how a conference is called and what they discussed to form a statement that would accurately reflect the scripture and what we apprehend as true in those creeds and confessions.

Thanks for doing it with me after a poor-attempt manner. It really was just me thinking out loud, kind of like interacting with a book and writing side-notes. -Lon

 

[Desert Reign]

Creeds and confessions have hammered this out better than I (more minds, working on it), but essentially I'm saying "God cannot lie" delves into His immutable character, rather than His omnipotence. His 'power' doesn't come into play and is not part of the question nor conclusion but I've seen a few on TOL discussing his omnipotence in such a dialogue so was trying to form and voice my objection (again having not a lot to do with you in particular other than I latched onto something you said because it better helped me express this thought). I had always tried to voice my disagreement on those conversations and perhaps I'm still not doing the best job yet. Putting a name to a thing allows me to go look up other's weighing in over the subject as well. So again, I appreciate you being a sounding board for this particular discussion of "what God can and cannot do logically, scripturally." That's the whole of my purpose here.

IOW, I think people most often misapply God's nature, vs God's ability, and thus often confuse the two after an illogical fashion. As I said, I'm trying to reinvent the theological wheel as I am sure I can find a creedal statement concerning this, confession, and scripture. Perhaps the groundfloor reworking doesn't serve as well, but this is how a conference is called and what they discussed to form a statement that would accurately reflect the scripture and what we apprehend as true in those creeds and confessions.

Thanks for doing it with me after a poor-attempt manner. It really was just me thinking out loud, kind of like interacting with a book and writing side-notes. -Lon

Thanks again.
I am not at all interested in historical creedal statements or 'pedantic scriptures' because these need to be interpreted just the same and this only results in endless usually fruitless discussions over meaning. I am just trying to understand what you think and perhaps, if such a thing is possible, to get you to understand what I think. Or are you just saying that you are in a perpetual state of thinking out loud and never coming to a solid conclusion? Or perhaps you are afraid that if you do, it will contradict some previous formulation that you consider authoritative? I am not in any way trying to be aggressive here, just trying to understand - I mean, if so, it would be a sort of quite Catholic position to adopt, whereby what you believe is not what you believe personally but what the church believes, even if you personally are not aware of what it actually is or do not understand it or even personally disagree with it.

But back to the subject: you say

but essentially I'm saying "God cannot lie" delves into His immutable character, rather than His omnipotence. His 'power' doesn't come into play and is not part of the question nor conclusion

So would you agree with this: God is as powerful as he needs/wants to be, in expressing his own plans and intentions, his own unchanging character?
Whether or not this is a definition of omnipotence and whether or not it is in conformity with some creed or some interpretation of scripture, does this statement reflect what you believe?

 

[musterion]

When it comes to God, we must rewrite it to fit His character. "Nothing is too difficult for Me" means omnipotent. When scripture says God cannot lie, it isn't saying it is too difficult for God, but rather that He will not do it as His nature is its opposite.

That's a rewrite.

 

[Lon]

Thanks again.
I am not at all interested in historical creedal statements or 'pedantic scriptures'

I knew this about you, but I think it beyond one man's capability to reinvent every theological wheel, though some theologians get close. They however, spent little time doing much else.
It is a worthy point to contrast here, and an important one as it reflects on society in Christianity, and at large as well. I do understand your OV thinking behind the sentiment.

So would you agree with this: God is as powerful as he needs/wants to be, in expressing his own plans and intentions, his own unchanging character?
Whether or not this is a definition of omnipotence and whether or not it is in conformity with some creed or some interpretation of scripture, does this statement reflect what you believe?

For me, "as He want's/needs" expresses a limitation.

God is Almighty (scriptural given of omnipotence). This necessarily means He is beyond utilitarian (needs) or volition (He is powerful and thus 'can' do as He wills with no qualification though I don't have as much issue with 'wants,' just that it may allow for whimsy rather than who He is, all the time).

But again, this was what I was trying to separate from God being unable to lie. It isn't a comment on His power, but on the fact that He is by nature against it ever happening. It is similar to "Can God make a rock He canno lift?" The answer is neither 'yes' nor 'no.' Rather, the answer is "illogical question." Similarly: Can God sin by sure power? Because it separates Him from His nature, you could say "yes, because He is all powerful" or "No, because He can't/will not do it." Perhaps (as I was thinking out loud) the problem is in an illogical or not well thought out question. So, that's about the whole gist of my posted interjections. -Lon (and thanks again for participating).

 

[Lon]

That's a rewrite.

Well, my point was that there is a difference between a theological dictionary and a common language one. However, Webster's unabridged, did better. It is the abridged versions that fall short, so perhaps 'revert' is the better than 'rewrite.' I'll take that correction/clarification.