The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)
- Thread starter Evil.Eye.<(I)>
- Start date
- Status
I've brought up key things that you all have patently ignored, which 'slays' your current interpretation of half the verses you've presented. That's what happens when you fail to have a proper exegesis of passages before you spam them.
This thread isn't debating theology, it's debating yall's prejudice- it's easy to demonizing something if you
a) misrepresent it from the get go
and
b) not have a structural theology to keep in line with yourself
I have news for you few: you're just being reckless with God's Word to serve your unfounded biases. The basis of Calvinism is everywhere in Scripture:
Proverbs 16:4
The Lord has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil.
Romans 8:28-29
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Hoping this doesn't get lost in the clatter of off-topic rancor...just a couple of thoughts on a couple of the points (I may have more later).
I don't think that's what John was trying to say. Certainly, all those of God should be taught of God (John 6:45, I Thessalonians 4:9), but even with the Holy Spirit working in believers, there are still disputes - still differences that the Lord (for whatever reason) hasn't resolved. And for apologetic reasons as well as to eliminate the erroneous reasoning of any supposed teacher, it is necessary to provide a reasoning (and in debate, it is simply a part of the procedure). And that may mean going outside of the canon of scripture. Paul did it on more than one occasion :
*For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
*Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
*One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
*This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 1:10-13
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Acts 17:28
EDIT : Or do you propose an open canon?
How, exactly, are you meaning to insinuate the meaning of "partiality"? Because as I understand Reformed theology (and I admit it isn't to any great depth), the whole doctrine of election specifically precludes partiality. One of God's most visible elections is of Israel was specifically because of their human insignificance :
The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
*But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 7:7-8
Why would the Lord choose and love such a people? Their father Jacob was a liar and a manipulator - yet God loved him before he was born. Esau, on the other hand, would have been seen as the man's man - the rugged hunter - the one man would have chosen. But God's elections go beyond man's understanding and God chose that which was an abomination in man's eyes. So when the Pharisees claim Abraham for their father, theirs is a partiality that is entirely loathsome to God. It is a racial pride that believes God does exactly what Peter and Paul variously speak against (and the OT speaks against as well (Deut 10:17, 2 Chronicles 19:17). This is not a God who picks a person because of who they are. Neither does election (as I understand it) state He does. Anyone who shows up at heaven's door trying to get in on the coattails of Abraham is in for a rude surprise (Matthew 8:11-12). So the respect of persons men like John Hagee have for those who are Jews - simply because they are Jews - is a twisting of God's promise to bless those that bless Abraham and curse those that curse him (this is going down a different path that need not be done here).
I venture to say that those who take pride in their election or even try to "drop God's name" (the same way the Pharisee's dropped Abraham's name (e.g. John 8:39) are giving evidence of their carnality (at best) and their unregenerate nature (at worst). But that doesn't in any way deny the elections of God. In fact, I would say election is bolstered by that verse (and others like it) you posted. It is not because of who we are or anything we have done...
I don't think that's what John was trying to say. Certainly, all those of God should be taught of God (John 6:45, I Thessalonians 4:9), but even with the Holy Spirit working in believers, there are still disputes - still differences that the Lord (for whatever reason) hasn't resolved. And for apologetic reasons as well as to eliminate the erroneous reasoning of any supposed teacher, it is necessary to provide a reasoning (and in debate, it is simply a part of the procedure). And that may mean going outside of the canon of scripture. Paul did it on more than one occasion :
*For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
*Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
*One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
*This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 1:10-13
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Acts 17:28
EDIT : Or do you propose an open canon?
How, exactly, are you meaning to insinuate the meaning of "partiality"? Because as I understand Reformed theology (and I admit it isn't to any great depth), the whole doctrine of election specifically precludes partiality. One of God's most visible elections is of Israel was specifically because of their human insignificance :
The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
*But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 7:7-8
Why would the Lord choose and love such a people? Their father Jacob was a liar and a manipulator - yet God loved him before he was born. Esau, on the other hand, would have been seen as the man's man - the rugged hunter - the one man would have chosen. But God's elections go beyond man's understanding and God chose that which was an abomination in man's eyes. So when the Pharisees claim Abraham for their father, theirs is a partiality that is entirely loathsome to God. It is a racial pride that believes God does exactly what Peter and Paul variously speak against (and the OT speaks against as well (Deut 10:17, 2 Chronicles 19:17). This is not a God who picks a person because of who they are. Neither does election (as I understand it) state He does. Anyone who shows up at heaven's door trying to get in on the coattails of Abraham is in for a rude surprise (Matthew 8:11-12). So the respect of persons men like John Hagee have for those who are Jews - simply because they are Jews - is a twisting of God's promise to bless those that bless Abraham and curse those that curse him (this is going down a different path that need not be done here).
I venture to say that those who take pride in their election or even try to "drop God's name" (the same way the Pharisee's dropped Abraham's name (e.g. John 8:39) are giving evidence of their carnality (at best) and their unregenerate nature (at worst). But that doesn't in any way deny the elections of God. In fact, I would say election is bolstered by that verse (and others like it) you posted. It is not because of who we are or anything we have done...
First and foremost... thank you for taking so much time to evaluate this OP! I've seen you here and have been excited to hear your opinion. Your answer has not only exceeded my expectations, but it has challenged me to further define core implications of my assertions.
On this, I cannot be diplomatic in my answers to your questions. Your clearly articulated words and questions leave no room for me to be vague. I believe you did this out of respect to me and my OP, as well as towards yourself. I appreciate this.
In the forefront of my mind, I note that you are of the Universal Mother of Paul's efforts in Rome. Let us not debate "On this rock", brother. We both know theology from every angle. I simply say, all buildings of Christian proclamations must nod to your direction for origin, whether they like it or not.
I feel that the sins of the Mother church are so re-hashed by Protestants that they are the quintessential body trying to remove the spec, despite their "beam". I believe you will be displeased with "some of my answers" and thus it becomes difficult for me to respond. However, respond I will, out of respect to your scholarly post! I will take time to answer each of your cited questions, one at a time until I have answered them all.
And... we will continue discussion in this manner as long as you wish.
I only ask you one question at this current moment... Are you a believer in "agreeing to disagree", while maintaining peace through our union of sibling hood through our Lord, God and Savior Jesus?
I will follow this reply with a smaller requote of the portion of your post that clearly shows a deep resonance in our understanding. In it, we may find much more agreement than my ominous, first few paragraphs imply.
This is provocative in a most wonderful way. I look forward to answering each of your questions and replying in full!!!
Brother Ducky
New member
I know I am fashionably late to this party, but I fail to see that any of the verses that you quote refute Reformed thought in any way. Within limits of application would agree with all the scriptural points, although not all of the implied or inferred applications.
How do these verses refute any of the doctrines of Reformed thought. They are all in our Bibles also.
"Excuse-O-Meter" :rotfl:
"I never knew you; depart from me" has already been explained if you had only read and understood from the scripture what was posted concerning Esau. Eternal hell fire or whatever you want to call it is prepared for the Devil and his angels: not literal human beings. As for spam please look again into the mirror at your own ridiculous postings full of copy and paste:
Additionally you have not answered anything I have spoken to you from Rom 9:13-26, Jer 18:1-6, Jer 19:1-11, Isa 29:14, 15, 16, and Isa 64:6, 7, 8, not to mention all of the other passages that have been referenced concerning the old man nature Esau man who is your twin-goat devil that goes into the fire so that you might be delivered in the End. Like most you cannot see these things because you walk according to the flesh and do not truly believe the Testimony of Yeshua which expounds all these things; you might try starting over with the parable of the prodigal son, who decided for himself to repent and return to his Father when he realized how foolish he was to be eating pig slop.
I see scripture. Are you gradually wading in? At current, [MENTION=5671]nikolai_42[/MENTION] has made supportive and counter points. His counter points stand as excellent points to be addressed.
His supporting points are so clear that it doesn't take much address, with the exception of my complete agreement.
Almost there Crucible...
I'm looking for direct OP address and quoting with scripture that refutes its premise. The water here isn't bad at all. It's warm, clear and there's room for "whosoever".
# yup
You're just demanding that people come to God of their own accord rather than God drawing them, even though I shown very clearly that God does exactly that- when a person chooses to come to God, it is because God has drawn them.
What you people fail to comprehend is that, by the biblical measure, Reformed doctrine is the standard. That was the entire point of the Reformation- in order to even begin arguing against it, you have to start with an exegesis that harmonizes all accounts of the elect and predestination. Calvinism already harmonizes all scripture- it explains each and every verse on this thread.
This is why, if you don't have a theology, you cannot argue against theology. You can't speak gravity and deny physics, hombre- how about you all come back when you decide to have more than an arbitrary prejudice backed by an arbitrary belief structure, Because this whole dichotomy between 'theology' and 'biblical truth' is completely asinine- it is your way of calling something that makes no sense legitimate :wave2:
In direct address to your question...
Calvinism cloaks its absolute assertions with walls of scripture that are "filtered" through the lens of "reformed" theology.
The OP scriptures have been selected to prevent this.
A hidden point I will reveal to you is that points 5 and 6 are check mate, but 1 through 4 load the game to get there faster.
Is this reply too succinct? Shall I explain more, or do you see it?
Note: Every actual Calvinist that has come here has sidestepped the OP and sidestepped its address. In full disclosure, there are some examples here where Calvinists engage, but immediately refer to walls of theological explaination that skirt around an acceptable answer that falls into a yes or no category. Walls of confusion void of yes or no are the best examples. The worst examples are mere conjecture or simple insult and slander.
# I know I asked for it, but if Calvinism is so great, why does it have a pattern of failing the yes/no litmus test?
Hence Matthew 5:37... If the answer is complex and void of a committed yes or no, it is decieptful and unworthy of recognition.
To be a little rough in speech with some substitution... Calvinism relies on the same subterfuge that all Massively embraced doctrines of man rely on.
If you can't dazzle them with your knowledge, baffle them with your bull sish kabob.
Last edited:
Are you stepping up to the plate for debate under the premise of this OP?
"I never knew you; depart from me" has already been explained if you had only read and understood from the scripture what was posted concerning Esau. Eternal hell fire or whatever you want to call it is prepared for the Devil and his angels: not literal human beings. As for spam please look again into the mirror at your own ridiculous postings full of copy and paste:
Additionally you have not answered anything I have spoken to you from Rom 9:13-26, Jer 18:1-6, Jer 19:1-11, Isa 29:14, 15, 16, and Isa 64:6, 7, 8, not to mention all of the other passages that have been referenced concerning the old man nature Esau man who is your twin-goat devil that goes into the fire so that you might be delivered in the End. Like most you cannot see these things because you walk according to the flesh and do not truly believe the Testimony of Yeshua which expounds all these things; you might try starting over with the parable of the prodigal son, who decided for himself to repent and return to his Father when he realized how foolish he was to be eating pig slop.
Unanswered questions on a debate field with a bias, that are asked with scholarly skill and scriptural support indicate an inability to counter debate those questions.
I'm watching this with with interest.
As expected, your ready use of scripture is causing a hesitation of others to fully engage without adding "distracting" content.
Sarcasm is fine, but 2% meat and 98% Conjecture leaves the scales tiled your way at this point.
As if God wanted man to "not" come to Him "of their own accord?" Do you see this?
Are your gloves up, scripture ready and buckled to debate here?
If those scriptures were actually all posted it would be over because it is plain as day once all of the context is combined. Even the valley of the son of Hinnom is written about within the context of the same Jeremiah passages, (valley of the son of Hinnom = GeHinnom = Gehenna). The carnal mind literalizes allegory and devalues human life so as to afford "salvation" unto itself, (at the expense of other human beings who do not agree with their theology).
If those scriptures were actually all posted it would be over because it is plain as day once all of the context is combined. Even the valley of the son of Hinnom is written about within the context of the same Jeremiah passages, (valley of the son of Hinnom = GeHinnom = Gehenna). The carnal mind literalizes allegory and devalues human life so as to afford "salvation" unto itself, (at the expense of other human beings who do not agree with their theology).
This is another can of worms... but... I happen to like the literal and historical context myself.
On the flip... "Hinnom" is addressed in the OP. Your good eye is drawing out points I thought no one else would notice!
: )
Actually the passages you reference, (Yeshua says something very similar), both say "drag", not "draw", but as for the prodigal son he is drawn back to his Father because of the GOODNESS of his Father and not because of a threat of eternal conscious torment. The Father is only GOOD and does not know evil. The prodigal son learns evil the hard way, as we all do, by life's experiences and our own wrong decisions. It is simply the PURE GOODNESS of his Father that draws him back to his Father. It is his own conscious DECISION after having COME TO HIS SENSES, (Luke 15:17). It appears you are so steeped in your theological construct that you cannot actually read a passage for what it plainly states:
Luke 15:16-19 ASV
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
17 But when he came to himself he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish here with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight:
19 I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
"But when he came to HIMSELF" !!!
He is not an automatron puppet, whom the Father is manipulating, who says to himself:
"I will rise and go to my Father" . . .
The Pure Goodness of his Father drew him back home in true repentance.
And this is also part of the same context from which you speak:
John 6:44-45 ASV
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.
Have you indeed HEARD from the Father? This is the context:
Isaiah 54:11-13 Septuagint Brenton Translation
11 Afflicted and outcast thou has not been comforted: [Zion-Yerushalem of above] behold, I will prepare carbuncle for thy stones, and sapphire for thy foundations;
12 and I will make thy buttresses jasper, and thy gates crystal, and thy border precious stones.
13 And I will cause all thy sons to be taught of God, [John 6:45] and thy children to be in great peace.
Jeremiah 31:33-34 Septuagint Brenton Translation
33 For this is my covenant which I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will surely put my laws into their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.
34 And they shall not at all teach every one his fellow citizen, and every one his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them: for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.
The Father draws-drags by way of His Word which begins with the Torah and proceeds through the entire Tanach. Without that Word one has neither been taught of the Father nor has heard from the Father.
"Every one that has heard from the Father, and has learned, (from the Father), comes unto me."
For Messiah is the point aimed at in the Torah:
And the kingdom of the heavens is like unto a net . . .
And this is also part of the same context from which you speak:
John 6:44-45 ASV
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me.
Have you indeed HEARD from the Father? This is the context:
Isaiah 54:11-13 Septuagint Brenton Translation
11 Afflicted and outcast thou has not been comforted: [Zion-Yerushalem of above] behold, I will prepare carbuncle for thy stones, and sapphire for thy foundations;
12 and I will make thy buttresses jasper, and thy gates crystal, and thy border precious stones.
13 And I will cause all thy sons to be taught of God, [John 6:45] and thy children to be in great peace.
Jeremiah 31:33-34 Septuagint Brenton Translation
33 For this is my covenant which I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will surely put my laws into their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.
34 And they shall not at all teach every one his fellow citizen, and every one his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them: for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.
The Father draws-drags by way of His Word which begins with the Torah and proceeds through the entire Tanach. Without that Word one has neither been taught of the Father nor has heard from the Father.
"Every one that has heard from the Father, and has learned, (from the Father), comes unto me."
For Messiah is the point aimed at in the Torah:
And the kingdom of the heavens is like unto a net . . .
: )
Awaiting [MENTION=17677]Crucible[/MENTION]'s "superior" "reformed" response..
#
While you wait perhaps review the allegorical parable concerning the kingdom of the heavens being like a net because it is the same allegory of Jacob and Esau all over again but with different terminology. The Esau nature is the no-good twice dead rotting carcass flesh mindset of the old man; the castaway fish, (a vessel of spirit set for destruction). But of course when Paul uses this term, castaway, the translators often prefer to render it as "reprobate".
Matthew 13:47-50 ASV
47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48 which, when it was filled, they drew up on the beach; and they sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but the bad they cast away.
49 So shall it be in the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the righteous,
50 and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.
The "good" are gathered into (clean) vessels . . .
The "bad" are the castaways, the reprobates, the old man shaggy-goat twin Esau man:
Prince of the power of the air and spirit of the world which we, ehem, formerly served . . .
- Status