Why Reformed theology is the closest Protestant theology to the Bible.

[Josheb]

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Never said I could. Nice red herring.

If you agree that the nation of Israel needed 3 fathers,

Never agreed to any such thing...

including Abraham, your claim "Israel was not the nation promised Abraham" is contradictory to that agreement.

No, it;s not.

You really cannot see it, or you simply refuse to see it?

Right back at you. You've raised red herrings and straw men. You've also failed to address what was posted, preferring instead to post irrelevancies.

Was the covenant made to Abraham and his seed, or not? Yes or no?

 

[Guojing]

Never agreed to any such thing...

Why are you back flipping now?

Why Reformed theology is the closest Protestant theology to the Bible.

Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. We know that we have passed from death to...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Josheb]

Why are you back flipping now?

Why Reformed theology is the closest Protestant theology to the Bible.

Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. We know that we have passed from death to...

www.christianforums.com

I am not and your continuous false accusations is boring. Prove to me, you, and all the lurkers I said I could have my cake and eat it too. Prove it!

Likewise, prove to me, you, and all the lurkers I agreed the nation of Israel needed three fathers. If I ever said such a thing then it should be very easy for you to quote the post and link everyone to it. Do so now, please.

The problem here is your misunderstanding of Post 39. Yes, I do understand "why the nation of Israel needed to have 3 fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob?" The answer is "It didn't!" You did not bother to ask why; you just assumed I (and everyone else) believes as you do. We do not.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not the patriarchs of the nation of Israel. They were the patriarchs of the covenant. That is "covenant" in single conjugation, not plural. They were the patriarchs of the covenant made with Abraham and Jesus, the promised seed.

Galatians 3:16-18
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

I covered this in an earlier post (or two) so there is no excuse for you to pretend the matter has not already been addressed, and no excuse for you to accuse me of things I NEVER posted, and no excuse for you imposing you prejudices on others.

There's also no excuse for the following:

Do you know why the nation of Israel needed to have 3 fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob? (Exodus 2:23-25, Exodus 3:6)?

Let's take a look at Exodus 2:23-25 nd 3:6, shall we? Let's see if those texts actually state what you have made them say. Do they actually states Israel needed three fathers?

Exodus 2:23-25 KJV
And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them.

Exodus 2:23-25 NAS
Now it came about in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died. And the sons of Israel sighed because of the bondage, and they cried out; and their cry for help because of their bondage rose up to God. So God heard their groaning; and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God saw the sons of Israel, and God took notice of them.

No mention of necessity. Just because the Hebrews constituting the nation of Israel were the biological progeny of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does not mean they had three fathers. Note the first passage makes no mention of "father" or any supposed necessity thereof. Furthermore, what the passage does specify is the covenant, NOT the nation. In point of fact, the word "nation" is nowhere found in the entire chapter!!! Look it up.

Why doesn't the word "nation" appear anywhere in the chapter? The answer is because the nation of Israel did not exist in Exodus 2! In the words in Exodus 2 are "children of Israel," NOT "nation of Israel." The Israel to which Exodus 2:23-25 is referring is the children, or descendants of Jacob, not some geo-political entity that did not then exist. In fact, the word "nation" is used only four times in the entire book of Exodus. The first mention is about the nation of Egypt, not Israel. The next mention is a covenant reference, not geo-political nation-state references (the aforementioned Ex. 19:6). We have to go all the way to chapter 32 before we find a mention of "nation" that has anything to do with Israel as a geo-political nation-state (Ex. 32:10 and 33:13). Look them up.

All of the above also applies to the next verse you cited, Exodus 3:6....

Exodus 3:6
He said also, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

No mention of any nation. Utter silence. It is quite clear - demonstrably and undeniably - things are added the text; things are being read into that verse that simply, glaringly do not exist. The same is true of the claim of necessity. Neither of the texts you cited say anything about any necessity of three fathers (or two, or four, or a gazillion) fathers.

I would, therefore, like you to be honest. Stop misrepresenting God's word and stop misrepresenting my posts, and stop making baseless, false accusations. Read what is actually, explicitly stated in God's word and read what is actually stated in my posts. It is very clear your theology is not close to the Bible. This op is about the premise Reformed theology is the Protestant theology closest to the Bible. Try to stay on topic.

 

[Guojing]

The problem here is your misunderstanding of Post 39. Yes, I do understand "why the nation of Israel needed to have 3 fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob?" The answer is "It didn't!" You did not bother to ask why; you just assumed I (and everyone else) believes as you do. We do not.

So you understood "why the nation of Israel needed to have 3 fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob."

But you still can conclude that the nation of Israel didn't need to have 3 fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob."

Is that what you are saying? You can understand why something needed to be true but you still disagree that it needs to be true?

 

[Guojing]

We have to go all the way to chapter 32 before we find a mention of "nation" that has anything to do with Israel as a geo-political nation-state (Ex. 32:10 and 33:13). Look them up.

If it really matters to you, I can use those references that you prefer instead, which is Ex. 32:10 and 33:13.

 

[Josheb]

So you understood "why the nation of Israel needed to have 3 fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob."

But you still can conclude that the nation of Israel didn't need to have 3 fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob."

Is that what you are saying? You can understand why something needed to be true but you still disagree that it needs to be true?

Logic is not your strong suit, is it? Yes, I understand your question. I understand it is a red herring and bad theology. You did not ask WHAT I understood about your question. You just asked IF I understood it.

That is on you, not me.

And the fact remains you have been ignoring what's been posted AND belaboring an unscriptural position instead of proving your position. Btw, logically speaking, you could prove your position but that would not necessarily disprove Reformed Theology. You're off-topic and I won't be collaborating with any attempt to hijack someone else's op. State your position on this op, state it succinctly, state it op-relevantly, and do it now.

 

[Josheb]

If it really matters to you, I can use those references that you prefer instead, which is Ex. 32:10 and 33:13.

What matters is the evidence already in existence and that evidence shows you do not know how to read, understand, or handle God's word. What I would prefer is you address what scripture has already been posted and not hijack another's op. If you are going to engage this op through my op-reply then go back and start with Post 24 and what is actually posted therein.

 

[Guojing]

What matters is the evidence already in existence and that evidence shows you do not know how to read, understand, or handle God's word. What I would prefer is you address what scripture has already been posted and not hijack another's op. If you are going to engage this op through my op-reply then go back and start with Post 24 and what is actually posted therein.

Randy is no longer engaging with you regarding your replacement theology. I was only trying to understand your train of thought regarding it.

We can move on.

 

[Josheb]

Randy is no longer engaging with you regarding your replacement theology.

I understand.

I was only trying to understand your train of thought regarding it.

Then go back to Post 24 and post something op-relevant that's also related to what I actually posted.

We can move on.

I like to stick to the subject(s) specified in an op. Each op begets its own separate conversation. Digressions should be kept brief and soon return to the op-specified subject. I am loathe to hijack another's thread. I wholly disdain the practice of some who go through a forum and make every thread about their particular theological favorite. It happens a lot with some Dispensationalists. It's nearly impossible to have any discussion on the topics of Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology without some particular modern futurist derailing every thread s/he enters to make it all about his particular futurist views. NO effort to get the conversation back on topic proves fruitful. They are trolls. I've read Post 13-15 (which have nothing to do with Reformed theology) and the rest of your posts. It looks to me like you don't have any interest in the op and joined the tread to assert your own agenda. I'm not interested.

We can move on, but not from the op. We can move on with this conversation...... if we talk about this op, the particulars specified in the opening posts and my views on the op and yours. If you're not interested in discussing the op then do, please, feel free to move on. I may linger because I tend to agree with the title of this op. I also think Reformed theology is the theology closest to the Bible, Protestant or otherwise. I am sure there are some who disagree and, presumably, they think some other theology is closest to the Bible, but those theologies are not the subject of this thread. I'm not here to discuss Catholic theology, or Orthodox, Dispensationalist, or any other theology (competitive or comparatively). At least not until the subject of Reformed theology's veracity with scripture has been discussed.

If you are up for that then start with Op and Post 24.

 

[Guojing]

I understand.

It looks to me like you don't have any interest in the op and joined the tread to assert your own agenda. I'm not interested.

I am always flattered when people are interested in understanding why I have a certain doctrine.

Guess you are not keen to share your understanding, alright then.

 

[Josheb]

I am always flattered when people are interested in understanding why I have a certain doctrine.

Hypocritical red herring. It's apparent you're not interested in how Reformed theology is the closest Protestant theology to the Bible. It's equally apparent you have no interest in sticking to the topic as you criticize others for their supposed lack of interest in your op-hijacking agenda. No, I am not interested in your hypocrisy.

Guess you are not keen to share your understanding, alright then.

Ad hominem. If you post your views in your own op I might well show an interest and reply op-relevantly with all the keenness that thread warrants.

 

[Guojing]

Hypocritical red herring. It's apparent you're not interested in how Reformed theology is the closest Protestant theology to the Bible. It's equally apparent you have no interest in sticking to the topic as you criticize others for their supposed lack of interest in your op-hijacking agenda. No, I am not interested in your hypocrisy.

Ad hominem. If you post your views in your own op I might well show an interest and reply op-relevantly with all the keenness that thread warrants.

You made a claim that Israel is not the nation promised to Abraham.

People are asking you to explain your line of reasoning leading to that claim.

If you don't wish to, just say so, and people will automatically move on, no one is hijacking anything.

 

[Josheb]

You made a claim that Israel is not the nation promised to Abraham.

Never said any such thing. What I said is Israel was not the seed promised Abraham. Jesus was the seed promised Israel.

People are asking you to explain your line of reasoning leading to that claim.

No, they are not and if you continue to bear false witness then I will move on. I have already explained with scripture my position.

If you don't wish to, just say so, and people will automatically move on, no one is hijacking anything.

Do you have anything op-relevant to add?

 

[Guojing]

Never said any such thing. What I said is Israel was not the seed promised Abraham. Jesus was the seed promised Israel.

Why Reformed theology is the closest Protestant theology to the Bible.

Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. We know that we have passed from death to...

www.christianforums.com

You have a habit of flipping back and forth from your earlier points, I realized.

 

[Josheb]

Why Reformed theology is the closest Protestant theology to the Bible.

Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. We know that we have passed from death to...

www.christianforums.com

You have a habit of flipping back and forth from your earlier points, I realized.

I can and do acknowledge my mistakes. In Post 24 I did say Israel was not the nation promise Abraham. So I stand corrected. By that statement I meant bloodline, geo-political nation-state Israel was not the promised nation. My lapse does not change the facts of scripture; it proves only that I was unclear and inconsistent with my posts; not my handling of scripture. The nation promised Abrahm is a holy nation, the nation of priests, the nation God also told Israel He would make. At best, it might be argued Israel and the holy nation of 1 Peter 2 were two of the many nations of which Abraham was the father BUT that is going to run into some conflicts with the New Testament because not all Israel is Israel and the Israel that is Israel is not one of bloodline, geo-politics, or the Law. It is the Israel of promise and faith. That nation of promise and faith comes from many nations, all nations, Jewish and Gentile.

As has been demonstrated by the scriptures already posted.

Now how about you show the same kind of integrity and acknowledge having three earthly fathers is not a necessity (as was previously asserted)?




And you are still off topic. Have you anything op-relevant to add?

 

[Guojing]

As has been demonstrated by the scriptures already posted.

Word of advice: whenever you present reasons why you hold a certain doctrine, it is always your interpretation of scripture that you are presenting.

Your interpretation, in any way, is not equivalent to being "demonstrated by the scriptures".

Understand the difference.

Now how about you show the same kind of integrity and acknowledge having three earthly fathers is not a necessity (as was previously asserted)?

And you are still off topic. Have you anything op-relevant to add?

I had a good laugh when I read that statement about you showing integrity.

You merely said "you stand corrected", but you didn't even have the courtesy to apologize for accusing me of "bearing false witness".

I have not even explained to you my interpretation of scripture that led me to that doctrine of mine, that Israel the nation in the OT needed to have 3 fathers.

Given your obsession with being on topic, do you even care to understand my explanation?

Another reminder: when you explain your own doctrines based on your interpretation of scripture, even if others disagree with your interpretation and hence your doctrine, it has nothing to do with whether you have integrity or not.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Reformed Theology is considered highly accurate because it interprets the Bible as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation, rather than focusing on individual verses. This comprehensive approach helps address complex questions about God's identity, actions, love, the number of people saved, and our purpose on Earth, aligning as closely as humanly possible to the original biblical scriptures.

Examples of Reformed concepts would be Predestination, Total Depravity, God's sovereignty over all areas of life, God's omnipotent nature and more. All of these theological concepts are taken from the oldest and most accurate mauscripts of the Bible.

However, understanding Reformed Theology involves studying the Bible in its original languages—Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic—as they were used when the texts were written and as they have been copied down over the centuries by the Jews and Christians of history. This is essential because all English translations inevitably contain inaccuracies due to the evolution of these languages over millennia. Thus, while English Bibles are valuable, they should be approached with caution, and greater emphasis should be placed on the interpretations offered by theologians who have studied the original manuscripts.

Over the past 500 years, Reformed Theology has gained widespread acceptance among Protestants for its scripturally rooted doctrines. Its rigorous and sometimes challenging perspectives remind us of the gap between our sinful human desires and the teachings of the scriptures.

Other Protestant theological concepts that have existed over the years like Arminianism usually are not very accurate to the Bible because they're generally "proven" by a single verse or a small group of verses rather than taking scripture as a whole.

The problem with your thesis is that it does not take into account confirmation bias. This is something all of us have.

I can look at tge same Greek text you fo and read it entirely differently than you do. Of course I am just as convinced that my understanding of scripture is must inline with the Bible. This can lead to a battle of egos rather than glorifying God.

I guess the question I have is what differences does it make? If we believe, trust in and adhere to Jesus. If we call upon His name, He will save us. The rest just divides us until like Calvin we are ready to consign our fellow Christian’s to burn at the stake. And that is a real tragedy.

 

[Josheb]

Word of advice: whenever you present reasons why you hold a certain doctrine, it is always your interpretation of scripture that you are presenting.

No, it is not. That might be the case when you post scripture, but not me. I posted exactly as scripture explicitly states., and throughout the thread I emphasized those facts. Scripture explicitly states the gospel was preached to Abraham and his seed AND scripture explicitly states that seed is single, not multiple, AND scripture explicitly states that sees is Jesus.

That is NOT what I made scripture say. It is what scripture states, and it states those things explicitly.

You, on the other hand, "said" scripture "says" Isreal needed three fathers, when scripture never states any such thing. EVER. ANYWHERE.


What you've just done is called gas-lighting = blaming others for what you've done while pretending to be innocent and the victim.

Your interpretation, in any way, is not equivalent to being "demonstrated by the scriptures".

I did not interpret anything.

Understand the difference.

Look in the mirror.

I had a good laugh.............

Troll

I've asked you three times (or more) to post op-relevantly and not hijack the thread. You started out discussing your views of Israel and attempted to make the thread eschatological but are now attempting (Post 13) to make me the topic of discussion (in violation of the tou). Scripture has something to say about that.


Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.


I did my part. I asked once, twice, thrice. I'm going to exceed the standards set by scripture and ask you one last time, Do you have anything to post pertaining to the premise asserted in this op's title? If so, then please post it. If not, then I take scripture as explicitly stated.

 

[Guojing]

No, it is not. That might be the case when you post scripture, but not me. I posted exactly as scripture explicitly states., and throughout the thread I emphasized those facts. Scripture explicitly states the gospel was preached to Abraham and his seed AND scripture explicitly states that seed is single, not multiple, AND scripture explicitly states that sees is Jesus.

That is NOT what I made scripture say. It is what scripture states, and it states those things explicitly.

Even if scripture explicitly stated

the gospel was preached to Abraham
that seed is single
And that seed is Jesus.

When you use those 3 scripture statements to conclude that "Israel was not the nation promised to Abraham", you are trying to add your own additional premises to reach that conclusion..

Simply put, the conclusion "Israel was not the nation promised to Abraham" does not follow necessarily from the 3 premises you stated.

Try to understand the elements of sentence logic to understand what is a deductive argument.

You, on the other hand, "said" scripture "says" Isreal needed three fathers, when scripture never states any such thing. EVER. ANYWHERE.

Again you seem to have difficulty reading what I exactly wrote, no wonder you like to flip back and forth on your own point, since you probably have difficulty even remembering what you wrote.

What I said was

I have not even explained to you my interpretation of scripture that led me to that doctrine of mine, that Israel the nation in the OT needed to have 3 fathers.

I already stated clearly to you that it is "my interpretation of scripture that led me to that doctrine".

You actually read that as me saying "scripture "says" Israel needed three fathers".

 

[Guojing]

I can look at tge same Greek text you fo and read it entirely differently than you do. Of course I am just as convinced that my understanding of scripture is must inline with the Bible. This can lead to a battle of egos rather than glorifying God.

Excellent point, this is called the egocentric bias.