Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..
- Thread starter ARMcCarley
- Start date
flintstoned
New member
What do you mean "will choose"? God chose his elect before the foundation of the world....before anyone had done anything good or bad.
Lon
Well-known member
It necessarily makes it a different conversation because your nonliteral stance is against all of the rest of the thread, as is Universalism. It makes it a different conversation, and I'm not as familiar with your departure from Christianty. There is a lot of needed conversation because of this.
This is why it is beyond a straightforward conversation with you, however I did try to address your questions after the concerns involved with the OP. I'm stuck on the page, however and thus have different expectations in such a conversation. I believe it is the infallible word of God.
Lon
Well-known member
I'm seeing a bit of angst against Calvinists on TOL so want to address this:
1) I am growing to love TOL members more, not less. I pray for you and hope you pray for me. My prayer is simple: That you may grow in the grace and knowledge of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that your devotional time with Him is sound.
2) I and you are creatures in need of Jesus Christ and His saving work on the cross. It is my intention to love the Body of Christ, regardless of disagreement, provided we are saved by Grace, through Faith Ephesians 2:8-10
3) I do realize there are deal-breakers but an important goal of mine on TOL is to challenge ones that aren't while helping firmly establish those that are. I try to let Christ keep tabs on His church within those walls. There certainly are problems with cults, but not entirely against systematic theologies within Reformed/Protestant/Evangelical circles. I belong to the SBC and while there is similar discussion within our walls, there is a decided inclusion. I realize not all embrace that, but I include who my church includes as a necessity and also because I agree with them that until these issues are shown as deal-breakers concerning Grace and who is in the body, I'd rather be inclusive and err on the side of mercies and Grace, but am like the rest also, I will not compromise truth.
4) Truth is important but someone disagreeing with it, doesn't necessarily mean 'out.' Jesus used Samaritans a lot, and it was a hard pill to swallow especially for His disciples who thought they were out, and were even shocked that Jesus spoke to them. Jesus did tell the Samaritans a time had come where both truth and Spirit were necessary. He spoke to them in love, because they needed truth. We all often try to cram truth down the throat, but it isn't necessary: Because Christ Jesus our Lord God and Savior's words stand and do not return void. I endeavor rather to express them as well as be corrected by them and hold them up as the most important exchange of any dialogue on TOL or any other place on this earth. I both give them as correction, and am corrected by them. Such overshadows, upholds, and is the substantiation of exchange in this thread.
For that, I very much appreciate scriptural responses and endeavor to give them myself. I actually see love, even in correction, when someone shares Christ's words with me, and I pray you all see the same in return. Christ's words matter, to me, to you.
5) I understand agenda and am not against it, I'm trying to give my thoughts in a concise manner that addresses what I'm seeing as well as explain how I am endeavoring to respond to it biblically.
-Lon
1) I am growing to love TOL members more, not less. I pray for you and hope you pray for me. My prayer is simple: That you may grow in the grace and knowledge of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that your devotional time with Him is sound.
2) I and you are creatures in need of Jesus Christ and His saving work on the cross. It is my intention to love the Body of Christ, regardless of disagreement, provided we are saved by Grace, through Faith Ephesians 2:8-10
3) I do realize there are deal-breakers but an important goal of mine on TOL is to challenge ones that aren't while helping firmly establish those that are. I try to let Christ keep tabs on His church within those walls. There certainly are problems with cults, but not entirely against systematic theologies within Reformed/Protestant/Evangelical circles. I belong to the SBC and while there is similar discussion within our walls, there is a decided inclusion. I realize not all embrace that, but I include who my church includes as a necessity and also because I agree with them that until these issues are shown as deal-breakers concerning Grace and who is in the body, I'd rather be inclusive and err on the side of mercies and Grace, but am like the rest also, I will not compromise truth.
4) Truth is important but someone disagreeing with it, doesn't necessarily mean 'out.' Jesus used Samaritans a lot, and it was a hard pill to swallow especially for His disciples who thought they were out, and were even shocked that Jesus spoke to them. Jesus did tell the Samaritans a time had come where both truth and Spirit were necessary. He spoke to them in love, because they needed truth. We all often try to cram truth down the throat, but it isn't necessary: Because Christ Jesus our Lord God and Savior's words stand and do not return void. I endeavor rather to express them as well as be corrected by them and hold them up as the most important exchange of any dialogue on TOL or any other place on this earth. I both give them as correction, and am corrected by them. Such overshadows, upholds, and is the substantiation of exchange in this thread.
For that, I very much appreciate scriptural responses and endeavor to give them myself. I actually see love, even in correction, when someone shares Christ's words with me, and I pray you all see the same in return. Christ's words matter, to me, to you.
5) I understand agenda and am not against it, I'm trying to give my thoughts in a concise manner that addresses what I'm seeing as well as explain how I am endeavoring to respond to it biblically.
-Lon
ARMcCarley
New member
to the Op reformed theology is there in the bible,you can ignore it all you want and if your happy with that,then who am i to judge.
Both sides of the argument are in the bible and universilisim is in there as well,i usualy find people who claim they know it all pretty ignorant.
I dont understand it all but i wont ignore it,so do what the Lord tell you to do.And just keep a open mind mate God bless you.
Both sides of the argument are in the bible and universilisim is in there as well,i usualy find people who claim they know it all pretty ignorant.
I dont understand it all but i wont ignore it,so do what the Lord tell you to do.And just keep a open mind mate God bless you.
good one Eddie
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
Please someone tell me who God does not love?
Lon
Well-known member
John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 4:8,16
Rather, He hates the rejection of love. Rejecting love discludes one from it/Him. They then, are the ones without love.
Joh 3:17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Joh 3:19And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
Joh 3:20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
So, love is who God is, and those who reject/don't receive it/Him -- don't have God's Love, but it is ever God's nature to love. It is a part of Him and can't stop. He is also a God of Justice and Righteousness and so one without God will suffer consequences for his/her own choices and actions.
musterion
Well-known member
Reprobates.
He cannot claim to love someone when He never shed for them the blood of His Son, who was the ultimate expression of that love.
He can't claim to love those for whom He gave no possible way for them to be made acceptable to Himself.
He cannot claim to love those He damns for unbelief when in eternity past He decided they would forever be unbelievers.
Calvinists insisting God loves those He reprobated is another transparent lie and another Reformed slander against God.
Also note how the reformed can't answer simple questions and points without elaborate walls of text.
If you had free will, what would you do differently?
'Free will' is a slander, thinking one decides their salvation and quite frankly I'm tired of the relentless assault on Calvinism.
Reformed doctrine is the removal and correcting of faults that Christians built upon. Perhaps you might look up the definition of 'reform'- the entire intent was to bring Christianity back to it's original meaning.
Contrary ideologies collapse on themselves, and tend to trade in God's sovereignty for human control and bias.
Other doctrines are shenanigans. Tulip is laced throughout the entire Bible- the authors were Calvinists. All you can do is produce legal fictions of certain texts to pin your ideology against the otherwise entire nature of the Scriptures.
I have a response but it might get Lon's undies in a twist so I will hold my tongue.
It is great fun however watching you guys argue basics---free will/predestination, different interpretations of the same text, grace v. works, etc. You have a Holy Book provided to you by your god but no one understands it.
I'll just sit on the sidelines. Have fun.
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
musterion
Well-known member
Of course it was.Originally Posted by musterion
1. Was the eternal destiny of all - whether with Christ or separated from Him - effectively predetermined by the sovereign will and decree of God in eternity past?
So active reprobation is a fact. Thank you. One down, two to go.
No answer. *sigh*Our Lord's active and passive obedience in His sacrifice was not something potential, but something accomplished. The atonement was for those given to Our Lord and none so given will be lost to Him. Those whom God the Father left in their state of sin in Adam have but one destiny...eternal punishment. Now if you can identify all those persons, you would do the church militant a great service in the focusing of the church's efforts. Since you or no one can do so, we share the Good News promiscuously to all knowing that the foolishness of preaching is the ordinary means by which God's children are brought into the Kingdom.Originally Posted by musterion
2. Do those for whom the blood of Christ was allegedly not shed (those who did not receive your allegedly Limited atonement) have any hope of salvation? ANY AT ALL?
Your likely counter to this is that, well, man has this so-called ability to choose. You will also likely deny that all are born sinners and sin because they are so born. These are the two roots of all your caviling about the sovereignty of God. Until you can demonstrate these two views have warrant from Scripture, nothing else matters for all other related discussions flow from these two key points.
The Reformed understand that it is God who gives ability to choose and the faith resulting from that ability with zero contribution from His fallen creatures.
2 Thess 2:10, 12 flatly disproves your heresy.A false dilemma. Someone who "understands" the Good News will be saved and never reject it.Originally Posted by musterion
3. Someone hears the Gospel of grace and understands it, but does not believe it and dies in rejection of it. What does the Bible say will happen to him/her?
God is all knowing. Open theism is false theology.
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.
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.
Lon
Well-known member
Well, at least we know what you think. Your Pastor? I don't 'have' to be in this thread. I am fielding questions, NOT fishing for meaningless unsubstantiated banter. It doesn't interest me. Give me a verse. Correct me instead of slamming me. Where is your love. The kind of Love one bought with blood might share?? :think:
Explain that, and correct the problem with clear verses. I'm ready to conform not the pattern of this world Romans 12:2
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
One who is condemned already may very well be loved, but this does not remove condemnation, and only the blood of Jesus can. The blood is efficacious, it is the unbeliever who is without it. Explanation may not suffice for you (have your pastors been Calvinist bashing from the pulpit lately?) but I'm interested in scriptures that back up your point.
But He can "if He tries really really hard, and still does it anyway?" How does that make it better? I desperately need scripture at this point. Sad I'm not getting it.
Because you say so? Why is the assertion game always played? I'm answering questions, using scripture and it is all I'm interested it. I'm endeavoring to steer you away from meaningless banter that absolutely does not serve the Lord Jesus Christ. What is it you love, that Calvinism trounces? Spell it out. I'm NOT attacking Arminian philosophy here, never have. I avoid these threads like the plague any more. I may even leave this one shortly. This kind of thing doesn't appeal to me.
Seems rather a preference than a problem to me. I prefer the long answer on these more often than not, and always prefer scripture to banter.
Lon
Well-known member
"Boxers"
It is also discussed at length in philosophy circles.
At least pay attention to who quotes it.
:e4e:
Lon
Well-known member
You jump to unfounded conclusions. You are assuming double-predestination.
He said your question was wrong because you assumed something as true that isn't.
It says they "didn't" receive the truth, nor love it. And you don't understand what a heresy is.
So he knew ahead of time that Adam and Eve would sin and that he would kill lots of people in the Big Flood. Also that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc would kill millions. That a couple of wack job Islamists would kill people in San Berdo. Got it, thanks