Why are so many against reformed Theology…

[Oseas]

I am 74 now and have changed many points in my theology even in these later years.

What you say reveals that at one point you believed in a theology that wasn't true, maybe it was a chaff, so you accepted another theology again believing it was true, but it wasn't, and you have changed so many times, and now the Theology that you believe to be true is not either.

Remember: We know in part and we prophesy in part, bt when that which is perfect is come, then which which is in part shall be done away - will be annihilated; will be useless.

Then why to waiste time with things that will be annihilated in this seventh and last millennium or seventh and last Day, the Lord's Day?

What will be the strategy to fight against three unclean spirits like frogs whiuch come out of the mouth of the Dragon, and out of the mouth of the Beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet? For they are the spirits of devils ...which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of THIS GREAT DAY of God Almighty - the Lord's Day - . Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. Rev.16:v.14-15

 

[Oseas]

What will be the strategy to fight against three unclean spirits like frogs whiuch come out of the mouth of the Dragon, and out of the mouth of the Beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet? For they are the spirits of devils ...which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of THIS GREAT DAY of God Almighty - the Lord's Day - . Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. Rev.16:v.14-15

The body of the red Dragon- or the Church of the red Dragon, it is formed of three parts? 7 heads, and 10 horns, and a TAIL.

What will be the strategy to fight against three unclean spirits like frogs - A SATANIC TRINITY - which come out of the MOUTH of the Dragon, and out of the MOUTH of the Beast, and out of the MOUTH of the false prophet? This is the body - the Church - of the red Dragon. Who is ready?

 

[Oseas]

Actually it isn't hyperbole at all. The scriptures are clear that everything was created by His Word, for His Word, and in His Word all things exist. They couldn't be more clear on that.

His decrees are the be all and end all of everything He does outside of His inherent nature.

Your vision brings unto us all the MYSTERY of God wich will be revealed in this seventh and last millennium, the millennium of Truth, the millennium of Christ, the seventh and lst Day, the Lord's Day, (Rev. 5:v.10). The Word is God, the invisible God, yeah, the Word is God. He is invisible because He is the Word, He, the Word, is from everlasting to everlasting, the Word has not beginning neither ending. JESUS is the beginning and the ending, the Word made flesh.

 

[His student]

Remember: We know in part and we prophesy in part, bt when that which is perfect is come, then which which is in part shall be done away - will be annihilated; will be useless.

So true. I can hardly wait.

What you say reveals that at one point you believed in a theology that wasn't true, maybe it was a chaff, so you accepted another theology again believing it was true, but it wasn't, and you have changed so many times, and now the Theology that you believe to be true is not either.

I neither said what those past beliefs were nor did I say that I have changed any recently. I was, for the record, referring mostly to my theology concerning eschatology although I also questioned and changed my position on so called limited atonement many years ago.

Then why to waiste time with things that will be annihilated in this seventh and last millennium or seventh and last Day, the Lord's Day?

Because the Lord tells us to.

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

"Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage with every form of patient instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires" 2 Tim. 4:2-3

By the way - and said in a proper spirit - your end time eschatology has little or nothing to do with the subject in this thread.

 

[Oseas]

Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage with every form of patient instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires" 2 Tim. 4:2-3

This time has arrived, by the way perilous time as it is of your knowlege I am sure. Why perilous? 2 Ti.3:v.1-5 give us a list by which we can see why it is perilous. JESUS said the time will be as was in Sodom and Gomorrah, terrible, terrible, terrible. Paul apostle warned: 1Ti.4:v.1-2 -
1 Now the Spirit (the Spirit is God - the Holy Spirit) speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith (apostate), giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (Terrible, terrible, terrible)

The worst is ready to come henceforward. Around two thousand years ago, the apostle Paul prophesied (the testimony of JESUS is the Spirit of prophecy) saying: 2 Thes.2:v.1-4

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

See, the MAN of sin, the son of perdition, actually a former Cherub, this MAN already born in Jerusalem decades ago, he is the Beast like a lamb, but speak as Dragon, actually a false lamb, actually a false messiah, an esoteric/ spiritist/kabbalistic false messiah, Who will opposes and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Verses 9-13 reveals:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

The first NAME of the MAN of sin, the son of perdition, a former Cherub, is Eliyahu, he has more two surnames.

Brothers, it is midnight. Who is not sleeping? Take in mind that happened not only with the foolish virgins, but also with them which were selling oil out of time, as follow:

Mat.25:v.10-12
10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

Brothers, the foolish virgins and them which were selling oil out of time they all lost their souls.
Be careful

 

[His student]

This time has arrived,..... Brothers, the foolish virgins and them which were selling oil out of time they all lost their souls. Be careful

Have a good day brother.
I hope to see you on the other side of this life.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Do you deny that Jesus Christ was before all things, all things were created by Him and for Him and by Him all things consist?

What is this? The Spanish Inquisition or something?

That's obviously the point I was making.

Which is a fine point but you said that John was using understatement to make it. Not only was John not talking about the creation however, he was using hyperbole to stress how many great things Jesus did while he inhabited his creation.

The Word of God is the vehicle used by God to bring to pass everything He sends Him forth to accomplish.

Yes and God often used hyperbole to make his plans known. Because, that was how people talked at the time (we still do) and he intended us to understand his words.

All this talk of the Lord using hyperbole is nothing but your avoiding that fact.

It's fact itself. I quoted Jesus using hyperbole too. If you're this sloppy in recognizing the techniques that God uses to convey his message, what else might you be missing?

 

[Al Touthentop]

It is true. God said it and I believe it. You should as well.

God did not say he created the altars. By that same standard of injection, God made the Boeing 747. That is absurd.

God does disapprove of the sins He has decreed to actually take place from the choices made by men and angels - from the rebellion of Satan in an age long past to the final rebellion at the end of this earth.

Yet, if he created those beings for the specific purpose of "dishonor" he wouldn't be a rational or just God by disapproving. Therefore, it is much more rational to conclude that he made all vessels for honor and some, by their own free will, disobeyed him.

Reformed theology says very clearly that, whatever they mean by His decreeing that all things that happen take place, they are not saying that God is the author of sin or forces men to sin.

On one side of your mouth you say that. But then you say that everyone individually is predestined either for heaven or hell and has no control over that. Let's say that all you're saying then is that certain people are predestined for heaven and the rest go to hell and that those who aren't 'elect,' who obey the will of God just won't make it to heaven, and those who disobey are also not 'elect,' not because of what they do or don't do but because of the arbitrary list they happened to be on when God created their soul.

So, what's to disapprove of, if God didn't put someone in the elect category beforehand, if that person happens to sin?

Nothing rational. In fact, this doctrine of individual predestination makes sin itself inconsequential. There may as well be no morality or rules to begin with. Since the person who isn't elect can never be saved, then there can't be any rational requirement that he obey anything. His outcome is pre-determined, just as the "elect's" outcome is predetermined. The rules could therefore themselves be arbitrary.

But isn't it interesting that the laws of Moses and the gospel were not at all arbitrary. They conformed to God's notion of what was moral and not man's. In fact, God complained all the time about how man's notion of morality was so far below his standard of morality.

Therefore, we conclude that God's commandments mattered to him. Individual predestination would cause him to be quite frankly insane, were this doctrine of yours a real thing.

His expectation that the children of Israel obey his laws when in fact, he had chosen beforehand which one would obey and which one would disobey, would be the very definition of schizophrenia. He causes something to happen and then gets angry about what it was he caused in the first place.

But that isn't what is told to us in the Old Testament. He fully expected them to obey his commands because he created them with the ability to either honor or dishonor. When they chose honor, he blessed them. When they chose dishonor he cursed them. That's rational.

Reformation theology wants us to ignore the obvious logical flaws in their pronouncements and so cling to their assertions that they would rather us assume God is insane, than that they are in error.

No one said that false alters and false idols were created by God when He created the earth.

You did. That's why the objection.

But it does say that He knew full well from eternity past that they would be created by men and that He holds them together just as He does the men who create them.

Had you said anything remotely like this I wouldn't have objected.

In Him we live and move and have our being.

While we obey him. Our relationship, fellowship with God requires our obedience. 1 John makes this plain.

Sure it's a mystery. But you need to build your theology to include mysteries like that. That is what the Reformers did.

The reformers made up their own doctrine out of whole cloth in rebellion to other bad doctrine introduced by the Catholic church. The Bible was written to clear up mystery, not introduce it.

They did not have the luxury used by would be theologians on the internet of setting certain doctrines aside for a time while they are discussing other doctrines.

They were the ones who introduced the term 'sola scriptura.' Had they simply stayed in the scriptures, they could have conformed to the apostles doctrine.

Their teachings had to include the entire council of God. That's why the Westminster Confession of Faith, for instance, took so many years of prayer, study, and debate to complete and finally publish. That's why they ended up stating things that to some may seem contradictory like (errors of men redacted)

If they relied on anything that contradicted scripture, including so-called church father's writings, they were not basing their teachings on the whole counsel of God. They were allowing themselves to be led by men instead. That you see the absurdity of their proclamations, knowing that they are absurd and contradictory and still try and excuse them, is quite frankly telling of your sincerity.

 

[bling]

I do not believe that you understand reformed theology as well as you think you do. The majority of Reformed believers do not boast that we are of the elect. We give God ALL OF THE GLORY for his choosing us to be of the elect. It would be very arrogant to boast about having been freely given something you don't deserve to be given. Anyone you see who does as you suggest is either not a true reformed believer or is a very immature reformed believer who does not have a good grasp on the absolute sovereignty and mercy of God or is just arrogant. Nor does that individual understand that we are not to boast in self but ONLY in the Lord. I am not saying some don't do such things but this would be the exception, not the normal thing you'd hear from a reformed believer.

You keep adding "you can boast" as if that is what all reformed believers do. I can see arrogance in the idea that one boasts when he says I chose by my free will to believe in Jesus. One could boast about that as well. So I'm no sure you are actually thinking this through.

I am addressing the statement given and not explaining reform theology. The "boast would not be in the gift, but in the fact you are different in some positive way that cause God's selection of you not to be arbitrary.

 

[His student]

Not only was John not talking about the creation however, he was using hyperbole to stress how many great things Jesus did while he inhabited his creation.

Obviously - everyone knows that.

But I was talking about the Word of God who was incarnate in Jesus - as you well know. Why do you want to argue about something that is so obvious?

I quoted Jesus using hyperbole too.

So what?

If you're this sloppy in recognizing the techniques that God uses to convey his message, what else might you be missing?

I had no trouble recognizing the technique of using hyperbole. You also know that I recognize it and was using a form of hyperbole myself when referring to the works of the Word of God in history in general. Again - why the argument when it is obvious what I was doing and meant.

God did not say he created the altars. By that same standard of injection, God made the Boeing 747. That is absurd.

I was very clear in saying that men made the alters and that God decreed that their creation take place.

....it is much more rational to conclude that he made all vessels for honor and some, by their own free will, disobeyed him.

Everyone know that and I have not said otherwise. Again - you conflate God decreeing that certain sins take place with God being the author of those sins. That is something that both I and all Reformed theologians have clearly said is not what we are saying when we say that God decreed that sins take place.

But then you say that everyone individually is predestined either for heaven or hell and has no control over that.

I said no such thing. I have consistently said that the predestination of certain events like certain people rejecting Christ and going to Hell for it in no way negates or does violence to the free will of those people. In case you missed me saying that in the past - that should put that kind of straw man to rest.

....because of the arbitrary list they happened to be on when God created their soul.

You apparently haven't been listening to what I have said. I don't know how I could be more clear than I have been that God's "list" was not formed arbitrarily.

So, what's to disapprove of, if God didn't put someone in the elect category beforehand, if that person happens to sin?

The sins of those people?

There may as well be no morality or rules to begin with. Since the person who isn't elect can never be saved, then there can't be any rational requirement that he obey anything.

That makes no sense. Whether anyone at all is saved has no bearing on God's right to rule on morality and hold immoral people accountable for their sins.

God complained all the time about how man's notion of morality was so far below his standard of morality.

Obviously, as well He should have.

Therefore, we conclude that God's commandments mattered to him. Individual predestination would cause him to be quite frankly insane, were this doctrine of yours a real thing.

Of course they matter to Him. What on earth is to "conclude"? He said it over and over again.

Belief in the predestination of all that happens in God's creation is an inescapable conclusion based on His omniscience. If God "knew" what was going to take place today from before there was a today there could be no doubt that what He knew was indeed destined to take place.

His expectation that the children of Israel obey his laws when in fact, he had chosen beforehand which one would obey and which one would disobey, would be the very definition of schizophrenia. He causes something to happen and then gets angry about what it was he caused in the first place.

Listen very carefully. God did not choose beforehand who will obey and who will disobey. That is not the doctrine of election. That is a straw man of your creation.

God chose beforehand which one of those disobedient persons He would extend His special grace to and enlighten like He did Lydia and Paul and which ones He would pass by.

But that isn't what is told to us in the Old Testament.

Nor is it what you have been told by me.

He fully expected them to obey his commands because he created them with the ability to either honor or dishonor. When they chose honor, he blessed them. When they chose dishonor he cursed them. That's rational.

As they say in the Geico commercials, "everyone knows that".

Reformation theology wants us to ignore the obvious logical flaws in their pronouncements and so cling to their assertions that they would rather us assume God is insane, than that they are in error.

People like myself and Reformed theologians want you to listen more carefully and not misrepresent what they say.

You did. That's why the objection. Had you said anything remotely like this I wouldn't have objected.

I simply did not say that God created the alters at creation or at any time afterward. I clearly said that God decreed and predestined that the alters be created by sinful men and that He was omnipresent in the alters, the fires under them, and the hairs on the headdsof the children being sacrificed.

While we obey him. Our relationship, fellowship with God requires our obedience. 1 John makes this plain.

Our fellowship with God has nothing to do with the omnipresence of God who fills Heaven and earth. God is infinite and not finite.

The reformers made up their own doctrine out of whole cloth in rebellion to other bad doctrine introduced by the Catholic church. The Bible was written to clear up mystery, not introduce it.

The Reformers simply made sure that their statements included both sides of the mysteries presented in the scriptures rather than pick and choosing what they would and would not receive from them.

The scriptures were purposefully written by God in the way they were, containing mysteries and seeming contradictions, in order that those who are approved would become evident by their willingness to include all sides of those mysteries in their theology.

They were the ones who introduced the term 'sola scriptura.' Had they simply stayed in the scriptures, they could have conformed to the apostles doctrine. They were allowing themselves to be led by men instead. That you see the absurdity of their proclamations, knowing that they are absurd and contradictory and still try and excuse them, is quite frankly telling of your sincerity.

No - they were endeavoring to teach even those things that seem contradictory to men. The only thing absurd is the straw men you have represented as their teachings.

This conversation has become beyond ridiculous at this stage.

You have shown yourself to be unwilling to correct your tendency to misrepresent those you disagree with even after being shown where you have done that time and time again.

My "sincerity" requires me to clearly tell you that this is the last lengthy post of this kind between me and you. You have shown yourself to not listen to what I say and instead accuse me of saying things I have not said. The same is true for your treatment of what Reformed theologians have said.

I don't want to give you any further venue for what at this stage seems to be quite purposeful misrepresentations of the beliefs of others.

Any further posts to me will be considered as merely argumentative and will be ignored by me.

I hope to see you on the other side of this life and compare notes on what we once believed.

 

[renniks]

You realize we are all children of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

Whatever that means, we all make free choices.

 

[redleghunter]

Whatever that means, we all make free choices.

According to the Tree we hail from.

 

[StillGods]

It's the perspective of those that don't hold to the reformed doctrine. Of course reformers disagree.

Reformed people are the first people who told me God doesnt love, so that put me off Reformed Theology.

 

[renniks]

"For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Which does not say that God ordained everything that happens. We have already established that Christ is creator and ruler. What reformed theology wants to say is that he is behind every sinful act of every human.

In fact, we don't get very far before we run into some very arminian verses.

22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel.

 

[renniks]

According to the Tree we hail from.

Whatever that means..

 

[renniks]

Do you really want to take that verse from Jeremiah out of context and deny the omniscience of God?

I never denied the omniscience of God. I merely proved by scripture that God did not ordain his chosen people's sins.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Obviously - everyone knows that.

But I was talking about the Word of God who was incarnate in Jesus - as you well know. Why do you want to argue about something that is so obvious?
So what?
I had no trouble recognizing the technique of using hyperbole.

Then why when I pointed out that the passage in John was hyperbole and not understatement did you disagree? I don't understand.

I have consistently said that the predestination of certain events like certain people rejecting Christ and going to Hell for it in no way negates or does violence to the free will of those people.

I didn't understand you to be saying that. But Calvanism does, and now you seem to be rejecting the fundamental tenets of Calvanism. I think that's good.

"How few are there who, when they hear free will attributed to man, do not immediately imagine that he is the master of his mind and will in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to good or evil?" (John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion 2:2:7)

Whether anyone at all is saved has no bearing on God's right to rule on morality and hold immoral people accountable for their sins.

If God created them to practice immorality, then they aren't truly immoral. They're just doing what he created them to do. If on the other hand, they are capable of choosing to obey him, then he created them in a neutral state. And they have the free choice to pick obedience or disobedience.

Belief in the predestination of all that happens in God's creation is an inescapable conclusion based on His omniscience.

Omniscience does not itself require a conclusion of predestination. We know there was a predestination based upon his foreknowledge because that's what Paul writes. The question is, is it an individual predestination or is it more like, "If I'd have known you were coming, I would have baked you a cake."

It is the latter of course. Individuals are not chosen beforehand for salvation, it was the plan of salvation that was chosen beforehand and those who choose to obey it become elect as Paul explains in Ephesians. There is no call to boast because the works which he created us to walk in are "not of yourselves." We didn't invent them. Nothing man invented would put us into Christ. Can't be done. Only by obeying the commands God gave us could we be put into Christ. The giving of commands was itself grace or favor. That word just means favor. It doesn't indicate anything magical or supernatural. The resurrection was most certainly a supernatural event. But God's favor towards us is simply that, his favor towards us. And as John explained, it was God's love of the world, both sinners the obedient, which was the source of his favor towards us.

God did not choose beforehand who will obey and who will disobey. That is not the doctrine of election. That is a straw man of your creation.

It depends on which reformist you talk to. I'm glad this isn't your position as to believe it would be to believe God isn't just.

God chose beforehand which one of those disobedient persons He would extend His special grace to and enlighten like He did Lydia and Paul and which ones He would pass by.

Uh oh. Here we go. So what is the criteria by which he extends this "special grace" which is only available to certain persons? You know you've just done a 180. And what about those who were obedient? Or are there no obedient people? So he only chose SOME disobedient people to extend grace. Why did he not chose all disobedient people? And what is the evidence in the scriptures that says he only chose some disobedient to call? He called Cornelius. And Cornelius was already obedient.

I simply did not say that God created the alters at creation or at any time afterward. I clearly said that God decreed and predestined that the alters be created by sinful men and that He was omnipresent in the alters, the fires under them, and the hairs on the headdsof the children being sacrificed.

OK, that's not what you said. You specifically concluded that God created the altars and then demanded I believe that, because "he said it." Seems like we're actually in violent agreement that he didn't create the altars. Terrific!

The Reformers simply made sure that their statements included both sides of the mysteries presented in the scriptures rather than pick and choosing what they would and would not receive from them.

Including self-refuting statements in one's creed is not just "including both sides" it is confusing and dangerous. The scriptures do not present but one side however.

The scriptures were purposefully written by God in the way they were, containing mysteries and seeming contradictions, in order that those who are approved would become evident by their willingness to include all sides of those mysteries in their theology.

The purpose of the scriptures was to guide us into all truth. God is not the author of confusion.

 

[redleghunter]

Whatever that means..

See Romans 6:15-23

 

[renniks]

Do you really think that that verse tells us that the God who numbers the hairs on the heads of sacrificed children and fills Heaven and earth was not aware of what sins would be committed in Israel some 6 centuries before Christ died for those sins?

And do you really feel that you need to deny the omniscience of God just to beat your straw man claim that when Reformed theologians say that God decrees that sin takes place in His creation they have to be saying that He is the author of those sins and that He takes away free will and forces men to commit those sins?

I don't know what you are going on about. I'm not an open theist.
There was a beautiful post earlier, that I would quote if i felt like going back and looking it up. But the important point was this: If free will is not real, what are we doing here? What is the point of our brief time under the sun? If we are just pawns being moved around the board, then God becomes no different than allah or a thousand other false gods for whom humans are just play things for their amusement. That is not the picture we are given in scripture. God says we, his creation affect him. He says we can grieve him. He says he takes delight in us and sings over us. The unmoved mover god came from greek philosophy and unfortunately crept into the church, and exist still today in Calvinism. The God of the Bible is nothing like that god.

 

[renniks]

See Romans 6:15-23

Those are some very arminian verses.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves [as] servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
If you can't see free will there, you are willfully denying the obvious.