What are the basics of Reformed Theology

themuzicman

Well-known member
:nono: patently false from page 7:

I don't consider refuting Scripture with Scripture to be a valid form of exegesis. The fact is that AMR cannot show his exegesis from this passage, and wants to use other passages to influence the exegesis of this one. That's an invalid use of systematic theology to inform exegesis. Exegesis informs systematic theology, not the other way around.

The fact is that all the verses he mentioned do not alter my argument about what this passage says. He wants to assume the conclusion about what this passage says by using other Scriptures to alter this one. That's not a valid method. The exegesis of this passage needs to stand on its own, and the exegesis that works here doesn't allow AMR to say what he needs to say.

And the fact that AMR directly contradicts the text speaks against his position as well.

Both this post and the preceding substantially explained his exegesis in detail.

Which has now been refuted. The fact is that he cannot make a case for the "natural man" being only the unregenerate, such that the "natural man" cannot receive the gospel, namely because chapter 3:1-2 says that saved Corinthians could not receive them either. Based upon AMR's logic, the saved Corinthians would not have been able to receive the gospel they already received. He violates the law of non-contradiction, and thus his claim is false.

"Nuh Uh" was not even close for a substantial, let alone exegetical rebuttal (though you did some commentary here with a few OV assumptions driving those comments - -it is clear from the text in my estimation, that they surely are unregenerate Paul is talking about). Such is simply assertion if questions aren't asked about one or another's understandings from the text. There are number of indicators that these were unregenerate spoken of in this context of 1 Corinthians 2:14

My answer was in response to his non-response to the exegesis of this passage, as he attempted to import other texts to change the meaning of this one.

The fact that SAVED Corinthians could not receive the "things of the Spirit of God" indicates that Paul isn't speaking of the gospel in 1 Cor 2:14, and that "natural man" does not equate to "unregenerate", as there are regenerate who are also unable to receive them.

Thus, your conclusion is not supported in the text.

QED
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
What are the basics of Reformed Theology

TULIP

Total Depravity- man cannot save himself because sin is a central part of their being, and requires the imputed righteousness of Christ

Unconditional Election- God does not choose man based on their own merit, but of His own sovereign election

Limited Atonement- Christ's imputation of righteousness is for the elect, whom God preordained

Irresistible Grace- the elect cannot reject grace, because God has summoned them by divine providence

Perseverance of the Saints- OSAS; if a person falls from grace, they were never saved to begin with


Calvinism is the gospel behind the gospel; it reveals what is going on behind the scriptures.

Many sects take to making 'legal fictions', which often occurs from taking a particular text and using it to decode the rest. Reformed doctrine is through an inductive paradigm, in which all the texts are harmonized.
You see, that's how proper theology works :)
 

Lon

Well-known member
The fact that SAVED Corinthians could not receive the "things of the Spirit of God" indicates that Paul isn't speaking of the gospel in 1 Cor 2:14, and that "natural man" does not equate to "unregenerate", as there are regenerate who are also unable to receive them.

Thus, your conclusion is not supported in the text.

QED
I believe it is and have shown myself why. I used immediate verses to show the difference. On top of that, AMR said the same as I did, I just shortened mine. He is a thorough man and exegesis is the beginning of doctrine and theology. When someone show his/her position, expounds the exegetical sense of the text and also confirms the understanding using other scriptures, I don't think there is much to complain about because both are given. For you, superfluous it seems, but that's one fight not worth mentioning in my mind. The only thing one must pay attention to at that point, are the points that most interest one in debate. I think he can see your complaint about the superfluous or what you find irrelevant, but again, I think he adequately gave his exegesis of the passage.

I see the Corinthians as immature. Which scripture is it that makes you think of them as 'natural men?' The scripture clearly says the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit. My point (at least at this point as to what I am seeing as the point of your debate and open to steering or correction) : I see a difference between immature but progressing in ability and completely unregenerate. One man is immature, but maturing and encouraged to mature. The other is completely unable, and in fact, it suggests monergism of the Spirit's choosing for him/her to ever be able to come to God and understand that which is spiritual. His/her eyes have to be open. Even in a good many synergists camps, the Spirit is part and parcel to salvation. Some believe God is done and the ball is in man's court, as if God has left us alone now and it is up to us to respond to the gospel. I don't believe there are even many synergists that believe that. Most of us, monergists and synergists, believe God has to make a new creation recreated and that it is wholly His work.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I see the Corinthians as immature. Which scripture is it that makes you think of them as 'natural men?'

Whether the Corinthians are "natural men" or not isn't really relevant. The fact that the Saved Corinthians could not receive the "things of the Spirit of God" spoken of in 2:14 is the salient point. Yes, they are immature, but they have received the gospel.

This is precisely why 1 Corinthians 2:14 cannot be speaking of the gospel.

Whether Paul intends to group them in with "natural men" is debatable. Given that Paul gives this dichotomy between those who can "discern all things" (verse 15), and those who cannot receive the "things of the Spirit of God", the Corinthians would obviously be in the first group.

The scripture clearly says the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit.

Let's not get too far away from the text. Paul has taken the time to make the gospel, which he spoke without wisdom and fancy words (vv1-5), from "Wisdom spoken of among the mature" (v6). Paul then goes on to describe the "wisdom spoken of among the mature" between vv6 and 13.

Thus, we also see that Paul doesn't intend to speak of the gospel in verse 14, as he has limited the "things of the Spirit of God" to that "wisdom spoken of among the mature."

My point (at least at this point as to what I am seeing as the point of your debate and open to steering or correction) : I see a difference between immature but progressing in ability and completely unregenerate.

You may make this distinction in general, but in this particular text, Paul appears to set up only two groups in chapter 2: Those who discern all things, and those who cannot receive these things of the Spirit of God. Given that specific dichotomy, the Corinthians are clearly the natural men.

Granted that Paul uses "carnal" in 3:2, but he isn't creating a third category after the fact.

One man is immature, but maturing and encouraged to mature. The other is completely unable, and in fact, it suggests monergism of the Spirit's choosing for him/her to ever be able to come to God and understand that which is spiritual.

Except that Paul isn't making that point, here. Again, we can speak of that general idea away from the specific exegesis of this text, but Paul's dichotomy in vv14-15 is clear.

However, even in your admission of this point, you have to acknowledge that the saved Corinthians were not able to receive the "things of the Spirit of God" (per 3:2), and thus those things cannot include the gospel. That is an inescapable conclusion.

His/her eyes have to be open. Even in a good many synergists camps, the Spirit is part and parcel to salvation. Some believe God is done and the ball is in man's court, as if God has left us alone now and it is up to us to respond to the gospel. I don't believe there are even many synergists that believe that. Most of us, monergists and synergists, believe God has to make a new creation recreated and that it is wholly His work.

Which, again, only serves to make my original point: The immature but saved Corinthians were unable to receive the "things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14, which means that verses 6-16 cannot be speaking of the gospel.
 

Jdorman

New member
In forums like this one where theological discourse is taking place, precision of word usage is important, in fact vital, for proper discussion. We cannot communicate effectively if we are all using words with multiple meanings to everyone involved. Accordingly, yours is a very good question!

In proper theological discourse, the words "Calvinist" and "Reformed," should not be left naked and unqualified, as they mean something specific and we should take the time to understand their meaning as understood by those steeped in the domain under discussion.

Quite plainly, a Calvinist is someone who affirms the doctrines of grace commonly defined by the acrostic, TULIP.

These doctrines of grace ended up be summarized in an acrostic, TULIP, by a Pastor in the early 1900s as a nifty memory aid. Unfortunately, not a few think the mnemonic TULIP was something Calvin originated. He did not. The actual components underlying what was to be called TULIP actually were from a meeting some fifty-four years after the death of Calvin. A synod in Dort was held (1618) to address the position of the followers of the teachings of Arminius. Soon after the death of Arminius his followers organized a Remonstrance (a formal protest), presenting five points to the Church of Holland seeking to have its catechism and Belgic Confession revised. Those five points of Arminius' followers (the Remonstrants) were:

1. God elects or reproves on the foreseen faith or unbelief.
2. Christ died for all men although only believers are saved.
3. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary to bring man unto faith.
4. This grace may be resisted.
5. Whether or not all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere requires further investigation.

At Dort these points of the Remonstrants were thoroughly answered:
https://www.wscal.edu/about-wsc/welcome-to-wsc/doctrinal-standards/canons-of-dort

The word Reformed means those that affirm—without taking major scruples—one of the historical confessions of the Reformation era (Second Helvetic Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Standards), all of which which necessarily includes the doctrines of grace as well as specifics related to church polity, principles of worship, baptism, and much more.

For the Westminster Standards (WCF, WLC, WSC), see:
http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/contents.htm

For an nice exposition of the Westminster Larger Confession, see:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/

So, given the above, it helps to remember that...

All Reformed are Calvinists.
Not all Calvinists are Reformed.

Most Reformed have no quibbles with anyone who wants to appropriate these labels for themselves in ordinary conversations. But when he or she enters the realm of theological discussion, they should expect to be questioned about how and why they are using these words when their discussion takes a turn outside the bounds of the historical meaning of these words to the theologically informed.

For a more detailed explanation about what it means to be "Reformed":

http://the-highway.com/how-many-points_Muller.html

And on the topic of the soteriological views of the Reformed, see Packer's famous introduction to John Owen's
The Death Of Death in the Death of Christ:

http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Salvation/introessay.html


AMR
Even though I am not reformed or A 5 pointer, I like that you actually answered the question.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Which, again, only serves to make my original point: The immature but saved Corinthians were unable to receive the "things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14, which means that verses 6-16 cannot be speaking of the gospel.

Well, I showed you (as did AMR) why it made sense, because the unregenerate cannot fathom, including the gospel (also spiritual). I think I can see your point here, but I'm not seeing AMR's position as indefensible as you imagine or claim here. I'd likely concede here that the gospel is not what the Corinthians were too immature to receive, but to me, it then looks like agreement on doctrine, but a disagreement about this particular verse? In a nutshell, it looks like you are saying "Verse 14 is not about the gospel!" Correct?
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Well, I showed you (as did AMR) why it made sense, because the unregenerate cannot fathom, including the gospel (also spiritual).

Here's the problem: You're assuming the conclusion. Paul does not label those he speaks of in 1 Corinthians 2:14 as "unregenerate", nor does he designate that group.

I think I can see your point here, but I'm not seeing AMR's position as indefensible as you imagine or claim here. I'd likely concede here that the gospel is not what the Corinthians were too immature to receive, but to me, it then looks like agreement on doctrine, but a disagreement about this particular verse? In a nutshell, it looks like you are saying "Verse 14 is not about the gospel!" Correct?

That's the crux of the point, yes, as saved Corinthians are unable to receive those spiritual things.

Whether the gospel is "spiritual" or not, Paul is referring to a particular set of "things of the Spirit of God" described in verses 6-13 (the deep things of God), which are best spoken of as "wisdom spoken of among the mature" (v2:6) that the Corinthians are "not yet able" to receive. (v3:2)
 

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
Calvinist have stolen the word "reformed".

There is nothing about a reformation in Calvinism.

The reformation was about Martin Luther and his doctrine of justification by faith, which has nothing to do with Calvinism.

The truth of the matter is that John Calvin was jealous of Luther and wanted to come up with his own doctrine. Unfortunately his doctrine blasphemies God and his Son Jesus Christ.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

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

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Calvinist have stolen the word "reformed".

There is nothing about a reformation in Calvinism.

The reformation was about Martin Luther and his doctrine of justification by faith, which has nothing to do with Calvinism.

The truth of the matter is that John Calvin was jealous of Luther and wanted to come up with his own doctrine. Unfortunately his doctrine blasphemies God and his Son Jesus Christ.

As usual, you repeat your assertions without any support and ignore anyone's answers to the contrary:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-Your-Savior&p=4848350&viewfull=1#post4848350

Try not to speak about the historical development of the church, Robert. You clearly are out of your depth and it is embarrassing. Just stick to blogging your redundant topics or exchanging nana nana boo boos with b57. It suits you.

If you want to actually understand the Reformation, try these resources:

https://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Dogmatics-Set-Herman-Bavinck/dp/0801035767

https://www.amazon.com/Post-Reformation-Reformed-Dogmatics-Development-Orthodoxy/dp/0801026180

AMR
 

Samie

New member
Chapter VI of the WCF:
CHAPTER VI.
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of
the Punishment thereof.

I. Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

III. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
If people are born in sin, as shown in the quote above, then they are born apart from Christ and hence born lost. If this is the case then God did not save Adam that day he fell into sin. Instead, He just folded His hands and did NOTHING that same day to save his child from drowning in sin. Not a nice picture of our loving Father, the God of love (agape), is it?

A good earthly father, upon seeing his child fall into the water, will do all in his power, even at the peril of his own life, to save his child from drowning, will he not? If an earthly father will, why would our heavenly Father not?

I believe that God saved Adam through Christ (Acts 4:12) that same day he fell into sin, and reinstated him to his pre-fall spiritual status, an act that cost the Father His only begotten Son, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8). With Adam in Christ, all his descendants are born in Christ, instead of born in sin.

Did Christ teach that people start out in life NOT lost? In Luke 15, Jesus discussed the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son.

Notice:
1. Before the sheep got lost, it was with its shepherd. vv4 – 7
2. Before the coin was lost, it was with its owner. vv8 – 10
3. Before the son went lost, he was with his father. vv11 – 24

The lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son, did not start out lost. So with us sinners. Before we got lost we were initially with God. We were born NOT lost. And to be NOT lost is to be in Christ. Hence, we were born in Christ, instead of born in sin.

Preachers commonly use David's statement to back up their contention that people are born in sin:

KJV Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

In the verse, David tells us he was conceived in sin. But we are not to use this verse to the exclusion of the verse where God Himself told Jeremiah He sanctified him in his mother's womb:

KJV Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee ...

It then follows that if preachers apply David's statement to all people, then God's statement to Jeremiah must be applied to all, as well. Hence, conceived in sin (as David said of himself), but born already sanctified (as God told Jeremiah). And those sanctified, God made perfect forever (Heb 10:14).

Therefore, instead of born in sin, people are born in Christ. And that's good news.

Sadly, we live lives reflecting the lives of the lost. Yet, we have all the reason to rejoice: as in the parables all 3 were found, so with us all. We were all found. And we are back again to our Shepherd, Owner and Father. This is why in the gospel that Christ preached, He calls people to repentance (Mark 1:14, 15), the same call to repentance God issued in the OT (Ezek 18:30), the same call for people to repent that God NOW COMMANDS all men everywhere to do (Acts 17:30). Repentance is a change of mind for that which is good, instead of doing evil, we change our minds and do good. In other words, we have to overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21).

Christ assures overcomers will NOT be blotted out from the book of life and will be seated with Him in His throne, even as He also overcame and sat down with the Father in His throne (Rev 3:5, 21). All not blotted out from the book of life will be ushered to the heavenly portals (Rev 21:27). All blotted out will have their portion in the lake of fire (Rev 21:27).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Here's the problem: You're assuming the conclusion. Paul does not label those he speaks of in 1 Corinthians 2:14 as "unregenerate", nor does he designate that group.
I think he does BUT I'd agree if your point is simply that the previous verse wasn't about the gospel. Paul is talking about specifically the man 'without the Spirit' so is clearly demarking them and making a distinction from the Corinthians. If you disagree with the switch-up from immature vs. unsaved, I'm just not seeing that it needs a lot but a disagreement when we seem to be agreeing on every other point but that, in this particular scripture discussion. Of course I know disagreement after this goes deeper, but I think it essential to understand what is disagreed upon here. I don't think it has a lot to do with the thread other than what exegetically we bring from the scripture: Either the text is talking wholly without departing the immature Corinthians, or in this instance is making a comparison and we are disagreeing on what specifically, in context, is being compared and how they are alike and different. Suffice it to say, it isn't really a 'basic of Reformed Theology' at that point, but rather a specific, and not with an easily clear or cogent point of disagreement on something a lot more specific than I think the inquiry of this thread goes.


That's the crux of the point, yes, as saved Corinthians are unable to receive those spiritual things.

Whether the gospel is "spiritual" or not, Paul is referring to a particular set of "things of the Spirit of God" described in verses 6-13 (the deep things of God), which are best spoken of as "wisdom spoken of among the mature" (v2:6) that the Corinthians are "not yet able" to receive. (v3:2)
I think this part is cleared up enough for thread, then. Thanks for walking toward that end. I just found the accusation against AMR's exegesis not-with-standing. My point? I think both of you did exegesis. It is more important to me to discuss the difference rather than a dismissal. I believe this discussion shows that a fair amount of exegetical prowess was indeed carried by you and he. You might still disagree on that point as well, but for posterity, the show vs assertion or accusation serves the thread imho.

IOW, short summation: I think this particular was discussed meaningfully and is mostly done now, and thanks for going that direction. -Lon
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I think he does BUT I'd agree if your point is simply that the previous verse wasn't about the gospel. Paul is talking about specifically the man 'without the Spirit' so is clearly demarking them and making a distinction from the Corinthians.

Again, incorrect. The "Spiritual man" in verse 15 "discerns all things." So, Paul isn't speaking of those without and those with the Spirit, but rather Paul is speaking of those without the maturity to "discern all things", including the "wisdom spoken of among the mature" from verse 6, which the Corinthians were not, as per 3:2.

So, if there is a dichotomy in vv14-15, it isn't those who have the spirit vs. those who do not, but rather those who discern all things vs. those who cannot.

If you disagree with the switch-up from immature vs. unsaved, I'm just not seeing that it needs a lot but a disagreement when we seem to be agreeing on every other point but that, in this particular scripture discussion.

Not quite. We also disagree on what is included in the "things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14. The context suggests (vv6-13) that we aren't discussing the gospel at this point, as Paul refers to the gospel in vv1-5 and transitions into wisdom spoken of among the mature in v6.

Of course I know disagreement after this goes deeper, but I think it essential to understand what is disagreed upon here. I don't think it has a lot to do with the thread other than what exegetically we bring from the scripture: Either the text is talking wholly without departing the immature Corinthians, or in this instance is making a comparison and we are disagreeing on what specifically, in context, is being compared and how they are alike and different. Suffice it to say, it isn't really a 'basic of Reformed Theology' at that point, but rather a specific, and not with an easily clear or cogent point of disagreement on something a lot more specific than I think the inquiry of this thread goes.

Reformed theology depends heavily on this verse to speak about the unregenerate.

I think this part is cleared up enough for thread, then. Thanks for walking toward that end. I just found the accusation against AMR's exegesis not-with-standing. My point? I think both of you did exegesis. It is more important to me to discuss the difference rather than a dismissal. I believe this discussion shows that a fair amount of exegetical prowess was indeed carried by you and he. You might still disagree on that point as well, but for posterity, the show vs assertion or accusation serves the thread imho.

IOW, short summation: I think this particular was discussed meaningfully and is mostly done now, and thanks for going that direction. -Lon

Have a blessed day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
From Scripture we find the following abilities possess [sic] by all mankind:

Pre-fall -- able to not sin -- able to sin
Post-fall-- able to sin -- not able to not sin
Regenerate-- able to sin -- able to not sin
Glorified-- not able to sin -- able to not sin

Now, you are necessarily implying, here, that every baby, while in the womb, is "not able to not sin". That is, that every baby, in utero, must sin, in utero. Can you cite any verse(s) from the Bible in which it is taught that babies, having been conceived, and not yet born from the womb, do sin, while in the womb, and are under necessity of sinning, while in the womb?

In Romans 9:10-11, we read:

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Here, we find that Jacob and Esau, during the period between their conception in Rebecca's womb and their being born from Rebecca's womb, had done no evil--no evil works. But, your doctrine is that, nevertheless, throughout that in utero term, the unborn (and, of course, "post-fall") Jacob and Esau couldn't help but sin, every moment, continually. So, how would you distinguish between evil works, on the one hand (of which the in utero Jacob and Esau were not guilty, as per the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9), and actual sins, on the other hand (of which the in utero Jacob and Esau must have been guilty even prior to birth, as per your doctrine)?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
In short, the doctrine of original sin means that we are all born sinners and sin because we are sinners.

When, exactly, does a person first sin (because he/she is a sinner)?
At the moment someone else's (Adam's) sin was imputed to him/her?
At the moment of his/her conception in the womb?
After conception, but before birth?
After birth?
 

Truster

New member
When, exactly, does a person first sin (because he/she is a sinner)?
At the moment someone else's (Adam's) sin was imputed to him/her?
At the moment of his/her conception in the womb?
After conception, but before birth?
After birth?

You have stumbled on the great defect of reformed theology proponents. That is, the inability to fully comprehend what the scriptures are actually conveying. They can cut and paste the scripture and the denomination's creed, but they have no true understanding. They cannot apply trust to the word, they fail to contemplate and the idea of spiritual meditation is beyond their comprehension and an alien experience. They rely on parrot fashion theology that just repeats what they have read or heard. They can recognise truth but only at a distance.

"Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm".
 

MennoSota

New member
You have stumbled on the great defect of reformed theology proponents. That is, the inability to fully comprehend what the scriptures are actually conveying. They can cut and paste the scripture and the denomination's creed, but they have no true understanding. They cannot apply trust to the word, they fail to contemplate and the idea of spiritual meditation is beyond their comprehension and an alien experience. They rely on parrot fashion theology that just repeats what they have read or heard. They can recognise truth but only at a distance.

"Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm".
Prove your statement. Show us the scripture that is cut and pasted that Reformed theology doesn't fully comprehend. I doubt you actually can show us. You are full of bluster and no substance.
 

Truster

New member
Prove your statement. Show us the scripture that is cut and pasted that Reformed theology doesn't fully comprehend. I doubt you actually can show us. You are full of bluster and no substance.

I have no need to prove anything. The regenerate will recognise the truth while the unregenerate will oppose it. As you have already proven.
 
Top