What are the basics of Reformed Theology

Lon

Well-known member
The issues with Calvinism have to do with its underlying exegesis. Frequently, verses are "interpreted" out of context, in order to fit the Calvinist systematic theology.
This happens fairly consistently throughout Calvinism, and is the reason it should be rejected.
Er, not only because AMR challenges your understanding, but because other passages say explicitly the same thing. John 6:39,44,65 Philippians 1:29 2 Timothy 2:25 That means that you either take the correction that your interpretation is wrong or accept it is scriptural even if you disagree on any particular verse, right?"

...1 Corinthians 2:14 isn't speaking about the gospel. It is painfully obvious..., which means we have to conclude that the use of this verse by the article above is improper, because it is not properly exegeted. (bolded for contrast with chapter one which follows: )
:think:
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. :think:
 

Lon

Well-known member
False doctrine at its finest!
"False doctrine" means 'wrong theological conclusion." I'm not really challenging that, because we all want our theology corrected, I'm willing to work on the logistics of it. We all, I think, want our wrong theological conclusions corrected (not really sure what to do with "at its finest" so will ignore that for now if acceptable).
John 15:16
Was this true?
Joh 1:38
Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, "What are you seeking?" And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"

....


Joh 1:41
He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ).
Joh 1:42
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).

or False?

I simply want to believe what is true. Help me out. Did they 'seek/choose to follow' or did Christ 'choose' them? John didn't believe the two passages were opposed. We may not agree 'why/how' they are not opposed, but we both agree they are not contradictory verses, right? You seem to embrace the implied truth of chapter one that 'they' chose and I embrace chapter 15 that they did not. Correct? Can either of us claim one inspired verse/passage is incorrect? (implied "no") For me, John 15:6 seems rather emphatic toward any misapprehension.
 

Epoisses

New member
The clay does not choose it's potter.

Do you understand the definition of 'elect', as in to be of the elect?

I have a secret for you

(It means to be chosen)


:)

True but the clay does leave it's first love and fall from grace quite often. Stupid clay! Repent, or Jesus will remove your candlestick.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Er, no. One needs to unpack Paul's particular word choices carefully.

Paul’s “wisdom for the mature” (see 1 Cor 2:6) calls upon a metaphor commonly employed in the ancient world to refer to elementary versus advanced teaching, an image that depicted progression in knowledge. In the New Testament the metaphor carries this apparent sense in Heb 5:12-14 (see also 1 Pet 2:2 and forward). Now if the same holds for 1 Cor 3:2, then milk represents Paul’s initial missionary preaching centered on the cross and solid food portrays more advanced teaching, God’s wisdom that unveils the meaning of the cross. But this meaning is difficult to maintain contextually in 1 Corinthians.

And, of course, "milk" refers to the gospel and the elementary teachings, which Paul spoke of in 2:1-5, and the "solid food" refers to the wisdom "among the mature", contrasted to the gospel, spoken of in 2:6-16.

Further, the saved Corinthians were not able to grasp the "solid food", the wisdom spoken of in 2:6-16. Thus, per your argument, we must conclude that the "things of the Spirit of God" spoken of in 2:14-15 cannot include the gospel, and thus the use in the article in question remains invalid.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Er, not only because AMR challenges your understanding, but because other passages say explicitly the same thing. John 6:39,44,65 Philippians 1:29 2 Timothy 2:25 That means that you either take the correction that your interpretation is wrong or accept it is scriptural even if you disagree on any particular verse, right?"

While AMR attempts to challenge my understanding, his argument only serves to make my point.

Further, John 6 does not support these claims either. While John 6:44 does speak of our inability to come to God, John 6:45 gives us a reason quite different from the article.

Philippians 1:29 only speaks, again, of being granted the ability to believe, but does not speak to why this is necessary.

2 Tim 2:25 isn't even speaking about salvation, but rather Christians whose doctrine is in error.

So, again, careful critical exegesis of Calvinist proof texts almost always expose some Calvinist imposition on the texts in question.

[quote:think:
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. :think:[/QUOTE]

This just further's my case. It feeds directly into chapter 2, where Paul describes preaching the gospel without wisdom and fancy words.

And then in verse 6, Paul transitions to "wisdom" which is spoken of "among the mature." This wisdom, too, is not understood by the rulers of the world. And it is this context in which 2:14 occurs, where the "things of the Spirit of God" refer to this wisdom Paul spoke of.
 

Cross Reference

New member
Heh.

Odd that "no creed but the Bible" becomes a shibboleth for those that fail to recognize the corpus of what they write and say, agreeing with this or that, denouncing this or that, effectively becomes their own creed. If they were consistent such persons would never say or write anything but direct quotes from Scripture, never taking the time to explicate what they just quoted and assuming all agree with the same.

The thing about all the Reformed creeds is that they plainly state their subordination to Scripture as Scripture is the only of faith and life. I will readily admit there are some who elevate a creed or confession above its ultimate standard, Scripture. These folks are and have been called out for their error.

Would that we all would summarize what we believe as we study and worship during our walk of faith. The Scripture teaches us to confess that which we believe. How many of us right now could reach for a one or two page summary of Scripture detailing "I believe these things from my study of Holy Writ"? Sadly, only a few. Pointing to the Bible on the coffee table or shelf and exclaiming "I believe this!" or "Just Me and My Bible" may be well-intentioned, yet it is often wrapped up in self-righteousness soon exposed once the person begins to wax eloquent.

Confessing what we believe is not merely a command for oral expression, but also written, the books and parchments, as Paul asked for from Timothy. Indeed, the creeds and confessions define a community of saints seeking like-mindedness and unity, for a church without a creed (written or unwritten) is a church that stands for nothing and falls for everything.

AMR


Wax eloquent, you say? As you do to the point of being incomprehensible?
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Reformed gets flack primarily on it's rigidness, whereas other Calvinists are more flexible.

I'll be the first one to say that I have a tendency to be very rigid with theology. Sometimes it's a bad thing, other times it's good :idunno:
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

https://www.monergism.com/our-faith

Due to the effects of the fall (of Adam) on the mind and will, man's spiritual condition by nature is such that he is dead in trespasses and sins, enslaved to sin, wholly incapable and unwilling to come to God (1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7, John 3:19), and under the wrath of God. (Eph.2:1-3; Titus 3:3; 2 Tim.2:26). As such, man is utterly incapable of saving himself, or even to cooperate with God in his salvation.


1 Cor. 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

The Calvinist claims that the "natural person" is the unregenerate, and the "things of the Spirit of God" is the gospel (see quote above). However, the context does not support such a reading. Paul has transitioned to speaking about this wisdom spoken "among the mature." This may or may not refer to the unregenerate, but is clearly not about the gospel.

1 Cor 3:1-3 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh.

When Paul first came, they could not be addressed as spiritual, even though they were "infants in Christ." Being in Christ, would that not indicate that they are already saved? But even this argument is unnecessary, as Paul states that they are "not yet ready." These same Corinthians who are repeatedly called brothers, who are being rebuked as Christians, are not yet ready to receive the "things of the Spirit of God" Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 2:6-16.

So, either we must conclude that the Corinthians were unsaved, and that Paul was in error for rebuking them for failing the body of Christ, or that 1 Corinthians 2:14 isn't speaking about the gospel. It is painfully obvious that the latter is the case, which means we have to conclude that the use of this verse by the article above is improper, because it is not properly exegeted.

You are misunderstanding what is happening in the passages in question.

Paul rebukes the Corinthians for their behavior and speaks to them as though they were unsaved persons in order to rebuke and shame them for their behavior. The verse 2 Cor 2:14 makes it clear that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things, for the natural man is lost and

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- is not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2);
- must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5);
- cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

Accordingly, what follows in 1 Cor 3 from the clear teaching that the lost are unable to receive spiritual things in 1 Cor. 2:14 is an argument of reductio ad absurdum for the benefit of the Corinthians. The argument is used to demonstrate that their behavior was so egregious that Paul is treating them as though they are unregenerate (unregenerate is the assumption of 1 Cor. 2:14) and that they need to recognize that they, being regenerate, were failing to comprehend and take upon themselves (receive it) the wisdom of the cross as evidenced by their strife and jealousy. Just as the parent tells the wayward teenager, "if you are going to act like a child, I am going to treat you as one" to shame and provoke them to mature behavior, Paul scolds the Corinthians, using "infants in Christ" pejoratively to highlight the synthetic substitutes which the Corinthians have preferred. It is not that Paul does not or cannot give them wisdom in the form of solid food, nor is it that the regenerate Corinthians are incapable of receiving the wisdom Paul is offering them; rather the Corinthians do not recognize what he gives them to be wisdom because the Corinthians were refusing to abandon their present behavior, impeding their appreciation the milk for what it really is, “solid food.” Just as one's bad behavior stunts one's growth in their walk of faith, it is only until one moves beyond their childishness, that they can enjoy the greater blessings of that which they hold dear.

You have taken issue with the summary of the state of the unregenerate in the article that cites 1 Cor 2:14:
Due to the effects of the fall (of Adam) on the mind and will, man's spiritual condition by nature is such that he is dead in trespasses and sins, enslaved to sin, wholly incapable and unwilling to come to God (1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7, John 3:19), and under the wrath of God. (Eph.2:1-3; Titus 3:3; 2 Tim.2:26). As such, man is utterly incapable of saving himself, or even to cooperate with God in his salvation.

The full context is worth examining:

1 Corinthians 2:12-16 (NKJV)
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
1 Corinthians 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
1 Corinthians 2:16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

The natural man possesses no Spirit who is from God, to know that which has been given by God. Paul lays claim to speaking as he has been taught by the Spirit, for Paul has received the Spirit from God, been regenerated. Natural man—all others not indwelled by the Spirit—cannot receive things of the Spirit of God—spiritual things—for the natural man thinks of them as but nonsense. The natural man cannot even know spiritual things—spiritual knowledge—true knowledge. The natural man possesses no ability when it comes to spiritual matters.

From my now two responses, and a closer look at 1 Cor 2:14, I see nothing in what you have argued from 2 Cor. 2 that overcomes this accurate summary within the article in question concerning the teachings of the whole counsel of Scripture.

AMR
 

Cross Reference

New member
You are misunderstanding what is happening in the passages in question.

Paul rebukes the Corinthians for their behavior and speaks to them as though they were unsaved persons in order to rebuke and shame them for their behavior. The verse 2 Cor 2:14 makes it clear that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things, for the natural man is lost and . . . . . AMR

Every righteous man of the OT was in the natural. The fact he couldn't understand spiritual matters was be irrelevant to him. Faith and trust needed none..

"I know my redeemer lives" . . Job.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Every righteous man of the OT was in the natural. The fact he couldn't understand spiritual matters was be irrelevant to him. Faith and trust needed none..
"I know my redeemer lives" . . Job.
Your opening claim that every righteous man in the Old Testament was in the natural need plenty of unpacking before anyone could respond appropriately.

Job was a regenerated believer, as were all believers, OT and NT. The same Holy Spirit that regenerates us now was doing the same thing for the OT saints. People were regenerated in the Old Testament just as they are regenerated in the New Testament, and one cannot be regenerated except through the influence of God the Holy Spirit. David needed the regenerating power of God just as much as the apostle Paul needed it in the New Testament.

As per Romans 1, one must distinguish between between the first book, general (natural) revelation (non-redemptive, through Creation) revealed to natural man, and, the second book, special revelation (redemptive, through Scripture) revealed to the regenerate.

God has revealed enough about Him, His attributes through the nature of the created world so that natural man (all unregenerate mankind) is without excuse to not worship Him. The extent of general revelation is limited, although leaving man without an excuse, and hence the need for special revelation (the Scripture). From general (natural) revelation, man knows there is a God to whom he will give an account and he hates this knowledge.

Yet, even though the natural man has "seen" and "understood" enough about the God of Creation, the natural man can only reason wrongly as they are suppressing this knowledge of the divine (sensus divinitatas)—the fact that God exists—and refuse to worship Him. As such, God is just in condemning man in judgment since the natural man had been given enough light from general (natural revelation) to not have warrant to deny the existence of God.

AMR
 

Samie

New member
The clay does not choose it's potter.

Do you understand the definition of 'elect', as in to be of the elect?

I have a secret for you

(It means to be chosen)


:)
True but the clay does leave it's first love and fall from grace quite often. Stupid clay! Repent, or Jesus will remove your candlestick.
God's call for repentance is the Calvinists' Dilemma. They pretend to have not seen the thread and choose to remain silent on the issue. 8 days and counting.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
God's call for repentance is the Calvinists' Dilemma. They pretend to have not seen the thread and choose to remain silent on the issue. 8 days and counting.

Maybe it's because nobody really sees it as legitimate. You act like Reformed doctrine is so weak and that the great Reformers would be contradicted by something so simple.

They would run circles around you :rolleyes:


Your dilemma is quite simple- you believe that God essentially isn't God :idunno:
 

Samie

New member
Maybe it's because nobody really sees it as legitimate. You act like Reformed doctrine is so weak and that the great Reformers would be contradicted by something so simple.

They would run circles around you :rolleyes:
Ohh... So Jesus' call for repentance could not be as legitimate?


Your dilemma is quite simple- you believe that God essentially isn't God :idunno:
Why not try addressing the Arminians' Dilemma?
 

Epoisses

New member
Your dilemma is quite simple- you believe that God essentially isn't God :idunno:

And you believe that God created sin. The picture of the loving Father who sends his only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world is changed into a cruel tyrant who creates lost souls to live lives of futility and be damned eternally. The lost never had a chance because they didn't win the cosmic lottery.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
And you believe that God created sin. The picture of the loving Father who sends his only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world is changed into a cruel tyrant who creates lost souls to live lives of futility and be damned eternally. The lost never had a chance because they didn't win the cosmic lottery.

'Created sin'

It's such an overly used, abused, and rather cheap argument. It's nothing more than a rhetoric hummed from a slingshot to people who find your theology dubious, which consistently adulterates God's sovereignty in trade for a purity of free will.

"Man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault."

This is a direct quote from Calvin, and I'll tell you this along with that: You sitting here saying you are alright with Calvinists but 'despise' hyper Calvinists- you may as well just drop that. Because there is nothing you will like more of a Calvinist over one who believes in double predestination- they both ultimately believe what you 'despise', either in one form or the next.

So
Please shut the mouth and stop acting like you got it out for someone. Your theology sucks, and that is in part why Reformed doctrine came to be in the first place.

And as well
There is nothing better of a god who creates, knowing evil will come, than one who does it of His own accord.
A false dichotomy on all of you all's part.

It is said it would have been better for Judas to have never been born. So why did God create him?
Your answer to that will no doubt suck too, along with the rest of your theology.

So just spare me your continued pestering and annoyance. Talking about 'it's going to get ugly'?
Please :rolleyes:
 

Epoisses

New member
'Created sin'

It's such an overly used, abused, and rather cheap argument. It's nothing more than a rhetoric hummed from a slingshot to people who find your theology dubious, which consistently adulterates God's sovereignty in trade for a purity of free will.

"Man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault."

This is a direct quote from Calvin, and I'll tell you this along with that: You sitting here saying you are alright with Calvinists but 'despise' hyper Calvinists- you may as well just drop that. Because there is nothing you will like more of a Calvinist over one who believes in double predestination- they both ultimately believe what you 'despise', either in one form or the next.

So
Please shut the mouth and stop acting like you got it out for someone. Your theology sucks, and that is Reformed doctrine came to be in the first place.

I have just as many problems with Arminian theology. They preach 'righteousness by choice' and reject a finished atonement at the cross. I usually commend moderate Calvinists for their preaching of the finished work of Christ and a grace based gospel.
 
Top