Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..
- Thread starter ARMcCarley
- Start date
If you posted the whole passage as I did, it demonstrates itself.
Post #140 demonstrates that you are all wrong.
And
You all are the punks- constantly trying to jump Reformed doctrine all the time because it's easy to do so when others around are predominantly open theists.
That's the definition of a 'punk'.
One doesn't have to be around long to see what takes over half these threads- it always comes down to Arminius vs Calvin. You think your belief trumps theological logic, and that is just textbook fanaticism.
Last edited:
If what the reformers did was valid, what we do is equally as valid.
The reformers refused to believe Catholic doctrine solely on the basis that it was Catholic doctrine. But you would have me believe Calvinist doctrine based solely on the fact that its Calvinist doctrine. I reject Calvinism on the same basis that Luther rejected Catholicism, sound reason and the plain reading of the text of scripture.
This is not a valid form of argument!
Luther was a Catholic before he was a reformer!
Let me guess, you can't see the point I just made, can you?
I made the argument is an intellectually honest and logically coherent manner. It is an argument that you cannot refute and will refuse to even engage.
The analogy doesn't follow. An atheist would have to do more than merely make the claim, he'd have to make an argument. An argument that I could then refute. It would be on the atheist to either respond to my rebuttal with a rejoinder or to accept it. He could of course refuse to do either but that is the point as which rational discourse ends.
Sounds to me like you have much more in common with the atheist than I. My entire worldview is built on rational thought. Nothing that is true can be irrational - by definition. This includes EVERYTHING - including theology.
What follows is the Calvinist idea of making an argument. What it is instead is a parade of irrational stupidity....
This is just such a stupid question!
I'd have to adopt HIS theological worldview to answer it!
In other words, I have made the choices I've made BECAUSE I DO HAVE FREE WILL! How am I supposed to know what choices God would have made for me in a universe where I didn't get to choose? It doesn't even make any sense to talk about choices outside of free will because that's what free will is - choosing!
Calvinists have divorced themselves from the rules of reason that they cannot see when they've begged the question!
This is what is know an a bald assertion. It isn't an argument, it isn't even part of an argument. At best it might be considered a premise but even a premise has to be defensible.
This actually resembles something close to a rational thought! It leaves off the logical conclusion....
Therefore the doctrines of omniscience and predestination as taught by Calvinist, are false.
Leaving that conclusion off means that the attempt here at an argument amount to an example of the question begging fallacy. Omniscience, as understood by the Calvinist is used as a premise in an argument in favor of Calvinism. You don't get to do that. Its called begging the question and/or circular reasoning.
Again a bald assertion. Nothing that preceded this leads to such a conclusion at all! Just stating that what you said means this, doesn't make it mean it. You have to make the argument.Do you know what all that means? It means that Calvinism is the only belief in which God isn't wicked, because those destined to Hell are intrinsically wicked and not sent there simply for being inflicted
Don't be lazy! If you doctrine is true then prove it. Let us see it stand the rigors of an intellectually honest, rationally coherent (same thing) examination!
I dare you!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
You may be confusing two thoughts.
Suppose it were true that anyone could be chosen by God and that God didn't choose the elect in advance. Just suppose that were true. Then your feelings of sadness for those who are lost would be a justified feeling based on the possibility that they could be saved but the actuality that they aren't. In other words, your feeling for them is a feeling of a loss that need not have been a loss.
Now imagine a proper Calvinistic situation where only the predestined elect are being saved. You still feel sadness for the non-elect but could this be your pre-Calvinist intuitions from the first scenario peeking through? And that your sadness for them is just based on a misapprehension that there was a possibiity of them being saved. Or could it nonetheless be that just feel sad that some people were not chosen in advance to be the elect? I don't see how that would follow because the Good Christian is surely supposed to love those whom God loves and hate those whom God hates?
So somewhere it seems to me that your intuitions are impinging on your intellect. Your actions and feelings are the evidence of what you believe, not the words that come out of your mouth. Jesus himself said that, right? If for example you may say that you are a generous person, but you never give anything to anyone because you are too busy to help or you have other things to spend your money on, or you think the person doesn't really need anything anyway and is just conning you, then in reality you are not a generous person. I am not making a criticism, just pointing out a subtle truth, that what you truly believe is determined by what you instinctively do and feel, not by the creed you recite on Sunday.
And I am not saying that your intuitions are necessarily right and your intellect wrong. But if there is a discrepancy between them then it is just a prompt for you to look more closely at your intuitions and try to remember where they came from. If they turn out to be based on some false understanding, then recognise that understanding for what it is and change. Accept the truth into your heart and from that point you will no longer have those intuitions. Alternatively, it may be that your inuitions are right and your intellect is wrong, in which you will also know what is best for you.
One thing is for sure and that is that when you make decisions, everyday decisions, the mind needs coherent intuitions to work on. You don't analyse every situation you are in before deciding what to do. You just do something. Your intuitions govern most of the everyday decisions you make. However much you may think of yourself as a thinking person. So at least think this: listen to what your intuitions are doing because you can be sure that they are coherent. They may be wrong, but incoherent they are not. You will at least find an explanation as to why you feel as you do. If it is wrong you can change it, if not you can embrace it and get a more satisfying intellectual perspective that is more consistent with what you actually do and feel.
My bold. Either God can do anything or God cannot. 'Not necessarily' doesn't come into it. You sound like you are hedging your bets here. Nevertheless it seems that you are saying that there are things that God cannot do.
So there goes omnipotence right out of the window.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
As I said, this elongates the discussion and travels a very long road that the rest of us are far from. We embrace the OT as an accurate portrayal of God as well as hold the scriptures as inspired unlike any other document, and true. Our conversation must necessarily start there because you can at any time in conversation say you don't hold to it, as arbiter of what is inspired and what is not. Romans 11 doesn't remove Romans 9 and in fact, Romans 9 precedes Romans 11 on purpose.
Lon
Well-known member
Outward sign of an inward change. It isn't a hanging issue in most Evangelical circles. I acknowledge your MAD/OV heralding, but am not sure this is the particular thread for it. It specifically is asking for feedback on the doctrine of limited atonement.
Since atonement means specifically 'Made-Right' with God, only those who are saved meet the conditions of atonement of being made-right with God, thus after all is said and done, atonement is genuinely limited to those who are saved. What every nonCalvinist argues against is merely 'intellectual' ascent. You want Jesus' blood to 'save' the unbeliever, remaining in unbelief and that is Universalism in odd gymnastic packaging, or perhaps, you are just not willing to give up yet. That however, is about our job of planting and watering and I agree. Only the believer is saved. If you are in Christ, you need not worry about the fate of those who reject God, as if God is unjust for their unbelief. That is overtly trying to apologize for God and that's interposing yourself between the unbeliever and God dangerously. Step out from there and simply be a preacher in season and out to the grace and mercies of God. All this banter is wasted effort. One plants, another waters, but it is God's job solely to give the increase. Spend your time on better efforts instead of always arguing with Calvinists. Get about planting and watering, giving others a reason for the hope within. I didn't enter an 'argue with a MAD/Arminian' thread. I purposefully try to avoid them. There is no sense in arguing amongst ourselves.
I'm fairly well done here. The scriptures have been given, despite interruption and the rest of trying to answer the OP is going to be lost in back and forth, if not already.
Lon
Well-known member
Well, Only the Open Theist loves it. Nobody else believes it can be true and I'd bet there are fewer than a few thousand Open Theists on the planet, or ever will be. I don't hate it, it just isn't logical. It has major problems that make God a slave to the universe. Malachi 3:6 Keep being a Berean, Nick.
Lon
Well-known member
Titus 1:2 though I also steer from saying what God cannot do, other than as scripture expresses it. "Cannot" makes something definite but it isn't an inability thus God is omnipotent. What He won't do, that His nature doesn't allow in Himself, is no limitation but rather the presence of sin apart from Him. It is rather a privation and no lack in God.
I'm not really correcting here, just giving more context concerning God's omnipotence. For our incomparable God, Lon
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When this (see below) sort of hermeneutics drives one's theological studies, it is no wonder what oddities will arise:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1533966#post1533966
AMR
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
Calvinism is the golden fruit of the Reformation. You all used it as a bridge to get away from the Catholic Church before turning against it- non catholic, anti reformers.
Imagine that.
You all went and created an entire web of heresy, especially in America which owes a lot of credit to the Reformation as well.
The only argument you and others have made on here is 'if God created men to perdition, than God is evil'.
The most typical argument.
An atheist will say, 'if you have to believe in God, then God is evil'. You will sit there all day and try to convince them, in vain, while they deny it and eventually show that they despise such belief- just as you have done here:
A Calvinist doesn't suffer from cognitive dissonance. You do, and I'll show you:
-If you are under predestination now, then what would you choose differently if given free will? Do you have a real idea of the forensic difference in the experience between them?
-Your own identity is predestined- you do not control your fate anymore then you controlled your beginning. You didn't choose you and how you identify with reality.
-Separating omniscience and predestination is fallacious. If God is the maker of all things, and knows the outcome, then it would be impossible for God to make anything without a predetermined outcome. Since He would know beforehand that an outcome would be undesirable, He would never make things to result in such a way in the first place.
Do you know what all that means? It means that Calvinism is the only belief in which God isn't wicked, because those destined to Hell are intrinsically wicked and not sent there simply for being inflicted
Unless you limit God, it is entirely possible and entirely true for God to see every possible path of everyone's possible future actions all at once. And to lovingly attempt to guide us on the narrow path that leads to Him.
Saying some are intrinsicly evil and others are not is false. We all are.
depravity and unconditional are man made
0 Bible results for “depravity.”
Sorry, we didn’t find any results for your search. Please try the following:
Double-check spelling, especially people and place names.
Make sure there are spaces between words. Bible Gateway treats “nameoftheFather” and “name of the Father” differently.
Use fewer words in your search, especially if you’re unsure of the exact phrase. For example, “baptizing name Father” and “baptizing them in the name of the Father” will both return Matthew 28:19; however, the latter leaves a greater chance for spelling and syntax errors.
Retry your search in another translation.
0 Bible results for “unconditional .”
Sorry, we didn’t find any results for your search. Please try the following:
Double-check spelling, especially people and place names.
Make sure there are spaces between words. Bible Gateway treats “nameoftheFather” and “name of the Father” differently.
Use fewer words in your search, especially if you’re unsure of the exact phrase. For example, “baptizing name Father” and “baptizing them in the name of the Father” will both return Matthew 28:19; however, the latter leaves a greater chance for spelling and syntax errors.
Retry your search in another translation.
0 Bible results for “depravity.”
Sorry, we didn’t find any results for your search. Please try the following:
Double-check spelling, especially people and place names.
Make sure there are spaces between words. Bible Gateway treats “nameoftheFather” and “name of the Father” differently.
Use fewer words in your search, especially if you’re unsure of the exact phrase. For example, “baptizing name Father” and “baptizing them in the name of the Father” will both return Matthew 28:19; however, the latter leaves a greater chance for spelling and syntax errors.
Retry your search in another translation.
0 Bible results for “unconditional .”
Sorry, we didn’t find any results for your search. Please try the following:
Double-check spelling, especially people and place names.
Make sure there are spaces between words. Bible Gateway treats “nameoftheFather” and “name of the Father” differently.
Use fewer words in your search, especially if you’re unsure of the exact phrase. For example, “baptizing name Father” and “baptizing them in the name of the Father” will both return Matthew 28:19; however, the latter leaves a greater chance for spelling and syntax errors.
Retry your search in another translation.
:doh:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast.
Lon
Well-known member
Good on you for looking! :thumb:
Try here: Isaiah 64:6 Romans 3:10-23
:think: Interesting that Bible-Gateway...
In addition to Crucible's post Ephesians 2:8-10, try Romans 3:20-23 and Titus 3:3-7; 3:5
Be careful AMR!
People you send to that thread might just read the whole thing! :chuckle:
You have a metaphysical problem with your ideology of God, which I revealed and which you, quite frankly, didn't solve.
I'm afraid I don't understand. The person I was responding to said 'there goes free will right out the window' because he imagined that God could not make an agent that was capable of willing something.
Your counter response just doesn't make sense. 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.