What's Wrong With Reformed Theology/Soteriology?

[tdidymas]

I explained Ro. 9...

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.



The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

You said "To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel." But we all began as common vessels, and therefore the honored vessels do exactly this. Yet my contention is that God decides who becomes an honored vessel, since the vessel can't decide that on its own. It is about the change of heart, which is an act of God.

You claim that Rom. 9-11 is all about the Jew/Gentile division, and that "vessels of honor" are the Jews. And your conclusion to Rom. 9:22 is "This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction..." But what do you do with the next statement in :23-24 "And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."

Note it says "from among..." which indicates he is talking about individuals, not groups. Therefore, the "vessels of honor" which he calls at this time "vessels of mercy" are those individuals chosen for salvation.

Therefore I think you have a great burden to prove that Paul's statement in :18 "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" refers to groups and not individuals.

From the tree of knowledge, they would realize it was wrong to run around naked.

And what would make it wrong, seeing there was no law saying it was? In fact God said "who told you you were naked?" This is proof positive that God never said it was wrong. But after their fall, it became wrong because they lost their spiritual covering.

​

No, it is not. Sorry for being caught doing wrong does not mean you are humbled, there is no emotional coming to your knees. Luke 14: 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

When a criminal is caught, he is embarrassed (his conscience bears witness against him), and he is sad that his freedom to commit crimes is taken away. His anger against authority is suppressed when he is put into prison where he can't commit his crimes. Yes, he is definitely humbled. It has nothing to do with an "emotional coming to your knees."

So "those who exalt themselves will be humbled" like the criminals who never "emotionally come to their knees." This is why those people are cast into the lake of fire. They will never "emotionally come to their knees." This is what "be humbled" means, because they never surrender to God's sovereignty, meaning they never humble themselves, but they have to "be humbled." It doesn't mean the disposition of their heart is changed.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Fair enough, as the intellect is obviously a big part of holy Tradition of the Church which is always engaged in the life and death struggle against false doctrine from the beginning til now. But what about the mystical vision of God that is the shared experience of the Apostles and of many of the saints; that vision of God which enabled them to know if someone is lying about God, or about the nature of the relationships between the Divine Persons, or the nature of God's relationship with man, or about the essence of the salvation that is coming from God through the redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in accordance with the will of the Father. What about the fact that no one but Christ has yet achieved perfection in their knowledge of God, on account of our fallen nature, so that no saint's sole ideas or personally held beliefs are above question, but all ideas are ultimately subject to testing within the body of Christ, of which Christ Himself is the Head and the Holy Spirit the Breath (and yes, the Church has almost exclusively resorted to the proper understanding of holy Scripture when testing various controversial ideas)?

Our argument would be as follows: Holy Scripture is produced from within Life lived in Communion with God, by the Holy Spirit, which is Holy Tradition. Therefore it follows that the proper understanding of holy Scripture is that which is acquired by those who are the participants of that Life lived in Communion with God, by the Holy Spirit, which is Holy Tradition. Hence, that which is born of Holy Tradition properly belongs within Holy Tradition, and should serve to lead those outside of Holy Tradition into Holy Tradition. In many cases the holy Word of God does exactly that, whenever this is in accordance with the will of God. And that is why so many who are led by the Holy Spirit in accordance with the will of the Father and decree of His Word are relieved when they discover the existence of the priceless gift of Holy Tradition.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "Holy Tradition." What? capitalized so that it implies it is revelation equal with scripture? - yet this is what Rome teaches, which you disagree with on many points.

I'm not against personal relationship with God, as you seem to think I need some kind of education in this matter. I certainly agree that a person must live the Christian life in order to better understand what they are reading in scripture. I've had plenty of experiences, illuminations, and revelations that have helped me in my understanding.

But what you call "Holy Tradition" just might be an evolution of traditional ideas and practices that changed from generation to generation. All we have as an accurate standard is the scripture. Ok, it's obvious that the leadership of the churches got together at some time frame and decided to limit the documents that is called "scripture," which had to happen because of false writings creeping into the churches. You can call this "tradition," and I certainly would concur. And it also helps to review church history.

But beside of that, all traditional ideas need to be measured against the standard of scripture. Anything that conflicts with the gamut of what it teaches about God, men, and the nature of our relationship with Him, should be rejected.
TD

 

[bling]

You said "To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel." But we all began as common vessels, and therefore the honored vessels do exactly this. Yet my contention is that God decides who becomes an honored vessel, since the vessel can't decide that on its own. It is about the change of heart, which is an act of God.

I should have included 2 Tim 2:21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

It specifically said “Those who cleanse themselves…”, so it sure sounds like the vessels are doing it even though vessels can’t actually do it, but in Paul’s analogy they can.

You claim that Rom. 9-11 is all about the Jew/Gentile division, and that "vessels of honor" are the Jews. And your conclusion to Rom. 9:22 is "This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction..." But what do you do with the next statement in :23-24 "And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles."

Everything that left the potter’s shop in those days had the potter’s mark on the bottom showing they were of quality workmanship. The potter wants every pot which leaves his shop and develops a crack and leaks to be destroyed, since it has his mark on it, but he did not make it that way, but did make the vessel so it could crack with poor care, but that is not his fault. Ro. 9 does not say who “prepared it for destruction”.

Note it says "from among..." which indicates he is talking about individuals, not groups. Therefore, the "vessels of honor" which he calls at this time "vessels of mercy" are those individuals chosen for salvation.

There is absolutely nothing tying “vessels of mercy” back to vessels of special purpose (honorable) and Paul immediately goes into saying these “vessels of mercy” include both Jews and Gentiles, which would suggest they come from both common and the special purpose vessels.

Therefore I think you have a great burden to prove that Paul's statement in :18 "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" refers to groups and not individuals.

Remember this all goes back to the diatribe question: “Is God unjust”? With the answer “Not at all!” There would be support shown by the imaginary debater for: “God being unjust” and Ro.9:18 is part of that support for the wrong answer.

I do not think he is referring to a group, but individual Jews or Gentiles. God has always shown mercy toward accepting individuals and hardens rejecting individuals, that is very just.

The question is: “Did God make it so: specific individuals were accepting and other individuals could never be accepting from birth?”

God certainly decided from birth who would be born in a gentile family and who would be born into a Jewish family, but from what Paul goes on to say, is it significant to the individual’s salvation if you were born a Gentile or Jew? This what most of Romans is talking about.

And what would make it wrong, seeing there was no law saying it was? In fact God said "who told you you were naked?" This is proof positive that God never said it was wrong. But after their fall, it became wrong because they lost their spiritual covering.

The "who told you, you were naked?" is just proofing to them, God knows we ate from the tree of knowledge. The tree of knowledge became a law on their hearts like we have today.

​

When a criminal is caught, he is embarrassed (his conscience bears witness against him), and he is sad that his freedom to commit crimes is taken away. His anger against authority is suppressed when he is put into prison where he can't commit his crimes. Yes, he is definitely humbled. It has nothing to do with an "emotional coming to your knees."

So "those who exalt themselves will be humbled" like the criminals who never "emotionally come to their knees." This is why those people are cast into the lake of fire. They will never "emotionally come to their knees." This is what "be humbled" means, because they never surrender to God's sovereignty, meaning they never humble themselves, but they have to "be humbled." It doesn't mean the disposition of their heart is changed.
TD

So, when the Bible talks about “every knee shall bow” includes people still being obstinate?

Christ would be a poor communicator if in one sentence he used two meanings for humble, so when He said “…those who humble themselves will be exalted?” would have to be the matching contrast to “those who exalt themselves will be humbled” using the same meaning for humble.

I would never consider you criminal person as be “humble”.

 

[truefiction1]

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "Holy Tradition." What? capitalized so that it implies it is revelation equal with scripture? - yet this is what Rome teaches, which you disagree with on many points.

I'm not against personal relationship with God, as you seem to think I need some kind of education in this matter. I certainly agree that a person must live the Christian life in order to better understand what they are reading in scripture. I've had plenty of experiences, illuminations, and revelations that have helped me in my understanding.

But what you call "Holy Tradition" just might be an evolution of traditional ideas and practices that changed from generation to generation. All we have as an accurate standard is the scripture. Ok, it's obvious that the leadership of the churches got together at some time frame and decided to limit the documents that is called "scripture," which had to happen because of false writings creeping into the churches. You can call this "tradition," and I certainly would concur. And it also helps to review church history.

But beside of that, all traditional ideas need to be measured against the standard of scripture. Anything that conflicts with the gamut of what it teaches about God, men, and the nature of our relationship with Him, should be rejected.
TD

What is meant by Holy Tradition is the Life in participation with God's Divine nature, by grace, and all such holy things and signs which both express that life and lead into it. Scripture is most accurately known by those who are partakers of the Divine nature because they are living the life provided in Holy Tradition, in which Scripture properly belongs.

We often capitalize the T in Tradition to distinguish it from various little traditions that we may find existing in certain places but not universally common to the Church, such as our own local tradition of gathering together for a meal (which we call holy supper) on the Eve of the Nativity following our evening vigil service. Not all Orthodox Christians keep such a tradition, so we would not include this in those things which fall under the umbrella of Holy Tradition. It is a religious tradition (lower case t), to be sure, but not considered to be part of Holy Tradition (Capital T). Our Creed, however, is something that is Holy Tradition.

 

[truefiction1]

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "Holy Tradition." What? capitalized so that it implies it is revelation equal with scripture? - yet this is what Rome teaches, which you disagree with on many points.

I'm not against personal relationship with God, as you seem to think I need some kind of education in this matter. I certainly agree that a person must live the Christian life in order to better understand what they are reading in scripture. I've had plenty of experiences, illuminations, and revelations that have helped me in my understanding.

But what you call "Holy Tradition" just might be an evolution of traditional ideas and practices that changed from generation to generation. All we have as an accurate standard is the scripture. Ok, it's obvious that the leadership of the churches got together at some time frame and decided to limit the documents that is called "scripture," which had to happen because of false writings creeping into the churches. You can call this "tradition," and I certainly would concur. And it also helps to review church history.

But beside of that, all traditional ideas need to be measured against the standard of scripture. Anything that conflicts with the gamut of what it teaches about God, men, and the nature of our relationship with Him, should be rejected.
TD

Yes, these ideas (which we consider to be true revelations pouring forth from the Life in the Church) are indeed measured against the standard of Scripture. When we measure certain ideas coming out of the spirit of the reformation, on the other hand, those ideas clearly fail to measure up to the standard of Scripture. The idea that God predestines certain individuals to damnation, for example, is never to be found anywhere in Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible hint even faintly at a person's predestination to hell. In fact, this repulsive idea does violence to the Bible, in which predestination is always a category of grace, never of punishment. Predestination pertains invariably to the Divine call, not the rejection of that call. It is always the description of the Divine favor, not divine disfavor. Predestination does not include God's arrangements to have someone damned.

The history of theology of salvation testifies to a serious and widespread misreading of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 9-11. This is because many have treated this section of Romans as a discourse on predestination to heaven or hell. On the contrary, Paul is just making a pretty standard observation here: God, in His providential guidance of history, makes use of man's sins. He never "prearranges" those sins nor wills them; He does not, that is to say, predestine men to sin. Even less does God predestine anyone's damnation. There is not even the faintest suggestion of such a thing in Holy Scripture. On the contrary, God wills all men to be saved. Damnation is never God's idea, and the majestic sovereignty of God receives no glory from anyone's eternal loss.

No. The providential ordering brought about by the Lord of history provides the context in which Paul introduces Paul's treatment of Israel's failure to know and confess the Messiah at His coming. This is the theme of chapters 9-11 of Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

Whenever we are struggling to understand a complex line of reasoning such as we find in Romans 9, it is crucial to pay close attention to the author’s own summary of his argument, if and when he provides one. By all accounts, Romans 9 is a difficult, complex and highly disputed passage. Fortunately, Paul provides us with a very clear summary of his argument in this chapter (vss. 30-32). Unfortunately for the deterministic interpretation, it appeals to free will as the decisive factor in determining who “receives mercy” and who gets “hardened.”

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

The newly born choose nothing, and of little children the Lord Jesus Christ says, "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:14).

Those Jesus spoke of believed.

 

[truefiction1]

Those Jesus spoke of believed.

All little children believe on account of the humility that exists in all of them, each and every one, because it is an aspect of their very nature as little children (Matthew 18:3).

 

[tdidymas]

Yes, these ideas (which we consider to be true revelations pouring forth from the Life in the Church) are indeed measured against the standard of Scripture. When we measure certain ideas coming out of the spirit of the reformation, on the other hand, those ideas clearly fail to measure up to the standard of Scripture. The idea that God predestines certain individuals to damnation, for example, is never to be found anywhere in Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible hint even faintly at a person's predestination to hell. In fact, this repulsive idea does violence to the Bible, in which predestination is always a category of grace, never of punishment. Predestination pertains invariably to the Divine call, not the rejection of that call. It is always the description of the Divine favor, not divine disfavor. Predestination does not include God's arrangements to have someone damned.

The history of theology of salvation testifies to a serious and widespread misreading of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 9-11. This is because many have treated this section of Romans as a discourse on predestination to heaven or hell. On the contrary, Paul is just making a pretty standard observation here: God, in His providential guidance of history, makes use of man's sins. He never "prearranges" those sins nor wills them; He does not, that is to say, predestine men to sin. Even less does God predestine anyone's damnation. There is not even the faintest suggestion of such a thing in Holy Scripture. On the contrary, God wills all men to be saved. Damnation is never God's idea, and the majestic sovereignty of God receives no glory from anyone's eternal loss.

No. The providential ordering brought about by the Lord of history provides the context in which Paul introduces Paul's treatment of Israel's failure to know and confess the Messiah at His coming. This is the theme of chapters 9-11 of Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

Whenever we are struggling to understand a complex line of reasoning such as we find in Romans 9, it is crucial to pay close attention to the author’s own summary of his argument, if and when he provides one. By all accounts, Romans 9 is a difficult, complex and highly disputed passage. Fortunately, Paul provides us with a very clear summary of his argument in this chapter (vss. 30-32). Unfortunately for the deterministic interpretation, it appeals to free will as the decisive factor in determining who “receives mercy” and who gets “hardened.”

I'm still in disagreement with you on 2 points:
1. Reformed theology doesn't teach determinism, so I think you are confused about that.
2. Rom. 9:30-32 is not appealing to "free will" as you claim. It's merely stating what Jews pursued and how they did it. If God doesn't grant repentance to someone, then they're on their own. And God hardens whom He will, as it says. John 12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." I'm just wondering how you can deny that God is doing this.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

I should have included 2 Tim 2:21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

It specifically said “Those who cleanse themselves…”, so it sure sounds like the vessels are doing it even though vessels can’t actually do it, but in Paul’s analogy they can.

Everything that left the potter’s shop in those days had the potter’s mark on the bottom showing they were of quality workmanship. The potter wants every pot which leaves his shop and develops a crack and leaks to be destroyed, since it has his mark on it, but he did not make it that way, but did make the vessel so it could crack with poor care, but that is not his fault. Ro. 9 does not say who “prepared it for destruction”.


There is absolutely nothing tying “vessels of mercy” back to vessels of special purpose (honorable) and Paul immediately goes into saying these “vessels of mercy” include both Jews and Gentiles, which would suggest they come from both common and the special purpose vessels.

Remember this all goes back to the diatribe question: “Is God unjust”? With the answer “Not at all!” There would be support shown by the imaginary debater for: “God being unjust” and Ro.9:18 is part of that support for the wrong answer.

I do not think he is referring to a group, but individual Jews or Gentiles. God has always shown mercy toward accepting individuals and hardens rejecting individuals, that is very just.

The question is: “Did God make it so: specific individuals were accepting and other individuals could never be accepting from birth?”

God certainly decided from birth who would be born in a gentile family and who would be born into a Jewish family, but from what Paul goes on to say, is it significant to the individual’s salvation if you were born a Gentile or Jew? This what most of Romans is talking about.

The "who told you, you were naked?" is just proofing to them, God knows we ate from the tree of knowledge. The tree of knowledge became a law on their hearts like we have today.

​

So, when the Bible talks about “every knee shall bow” includes people still being obstinate?

Christ would be a poor communicator if in one sentence he used two meanings for humble, so when He said “…those who humble themselves will be exalted?” would have to be the matching contrast to “those who exalt themselves will be humbled” using the same meaning for humble.

I would never consider you criminal person as be “humble”.

I disagree. Grace is an act of God, not a react. When James says "He gives more grace," the premise is that grace has already been given.
TD

 

[truefiction1]

I'm still in disagreement with you on 2 points:
1. Reformed theology doesn't teach determinism, so I think you are confused about that.
2. Rom. 9:30-32 is not appealing to "free will" as you claim. It's merely stating what Jews pursued and how they did it. If God doesn't grant repentance to someone, then they're on their own. And God hardens whom He will, as it says. John 12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." I'm just wondering how you can deny that God is doing this.
TD

1. Determinism, as I have used it here, is the belief that God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned arbitrarily before they are created. That is to say, God's will alone determines their fate. The will of the recipient of a fate is not a factor.

2. I must deny, just as all Who have received the perfect, full, and complete revelation of the glory of God in the Person of Jesus Christ, that God is hardening anyone unless it is because those whom He is hardening are choosing not to believe in Him. God may harden whom He will, as it says, but God wills all men to be saved, as it says also (1 Timothy 2:4). So, unless God hardens men in order that their sins will be used by the Lord of history in order to produce the best outcome unto the salvation of all, (as we see in the way that He used the sins of the bothers of Joseph to ultimately bring goodness upon all of them), then such hardening does not accord with the glory of God revealed through Christ on His Cross, and this inevitably renders Christ to be only a partial, imperfect revelation of God: the part that Loves only a few, rather than loving and forgiving even those sinners whose unbelief has them crucifying the Lord of glory.

The God Who suffers death on the Cross for the sake of the world, while all the while Loving and forgiving (praying for) those who did not believe in Him, is supposedly the very same God Who some say willfully hardens the heart of many unto their eternal damnation. But the only understanding that accords with both Holy Scripture and what is learned by directly receiving grace by the Holy Spirit is one that realizes that God’s process of hardening some and having mercy on others is not arbitrary: God expresses “severity toward those who have fallen [the nation of Israel] but kindness toward you [believers] provided you continue in his kindness” (Romans 11:22). God has mercy on people and hardens people in response to their belief or unbelief. And he is willing to change his mind about both the hardening and the mercy, if people change. If Gentiles become arrogant and cease walking by faith alone, they will once again be “cut off.” And if the Jews who are now hardened will not “persist in their unbelief,” God will “graft them in again” (Romans 11:22-23).

To the one Who is in Communion with God by the Holy Spirit, the role that the will of them who are either being cut off by choosing not to believe, or otherwise being grafted in because they choose to believe, is easily detected in the reading of the Bible. This is because their knowledge of God is true, and so it will not allow for the teachings about God that differ from the glory of God as revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ.

This is the inherent problem of theology that relies too much on the intellect and not enough on prayer in which we learn from God directly, by virtue of the intercession (help) of the Holy Spirit. Such theology has more in common with philosophy than with knowing God and Eternal Life.

 

[truefiction1]

I disagree. Grace is an act of God, not a react. When James says "He gives more grace," the premise is that grace has already been given.
TD

God gives grace to the humble, He resists the proud. Where does it say that God makes anyone proud, or arrogant, so as to want to believe in themselves rather than in God? Wouldn't it be okay to just accept that God does not give grace to the proud because they reject it by their own will (which, being in the image and likeness of God is their nature to have) but those who choose to receive humility can receive grace because they desire God, and so He shares Himself with them, as both they and He wills?

Does it not seem highly plausible, or rather extremely likely, that God's process of "hardening" is nothing more than His withholding of grace from those who don't truly want it or else are seeking it with evil motives (such as the sins of pride or vanity)? Is God the author of evil? Does God choose to make people to be evil? Or does it not seem more likely that God gives the unfathomably great gift of His image and likeness (freewill) to His most cherished creature (man), and they use this will to choose not to have His grace in them, the absence of which is the absence of goodness, light, and life; and the absence of these good things is defined as "evil"?

God's not the author of evil and does not predestine anyone to be evil. Badly used freewill is responsible for the existence of evil, and is why the ones who choose not to believe are lacking in grace (i.e. their hearts are hardened and their spiritual eyes are blind and ears cannot hear the blessed things that God would give to us all).

 

[truefiction1]

If God doesn't grant repentance to someone, then they're on their own. And God hardens whom He will, as it says. John 12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." I'm just wondering how you can deny that God is doing this.
TD

We don't deny that God is doing this. We unequivocally affirm that God hardens whomever He wills. But we must protest the horrendous notion that God is doing it arbitrarily. If God wills them to be hardened (which, by the way, is simply what happens when God's grace withdraws from anyone who chooses not to believe in Him) it is only because he is responding to their own choice to embrace sinful unbelief, and is using their sinfulness in ways that will bring about a good which will ultimately reveal the glorious Wisdom of God.

By choosing to have faith or to rebel against God, individuals decide which they will receive. They determine whether God will fashion them into a vessel of mercy or a vessel prepared for destruction (Romans 9:21-23).

This also explains why Paul says that God “endured with much patience” the vessels he was preparing for destruction (Romans 9:22). Why would God have to “endure with much patience” rebellious people if he was the one making them rebellious in the first place? Why would he go on to say, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (10:21, quoting Isaiah 65:2) if he was the one molding them to be disobedient? And why would a God of love intentionally fashion people to rebel against him and bring destruction on themselves in the first place?

In point of fact, the potter endures with much patience the vessels that are being prepared for destruction because it was not his original will to fashion these people in this direction. He would love for all “disobedient and contrary people” to come to him, and so he is patient with them. But so long as they persist in their unbelief, they are clay that can only be fashioned into a vessel fit for destruction.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

All little children believe on account of the humility that exists in all of them, each and every one, because it is an aspect of their very nature as little children (Matthew 18:3).

All little children are conceived in sin and under the wrath of God.
Any child that God saves is only saved by God's grace and mercy.
psa51
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
psa58
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Romans 3:23 King James Version (KJV)
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

[truefiction1]

All little children are conceived in sin and under the wrath of God.
Any child that God saves is only saved by God's grace and mercy.
psa51
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
psa58
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Romans 3:23 King James Version (KJV)
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Yes, thank you, we too have heard the reading aloud of these passages in Scripture throughout much of the last thousands of years. Unfortunately for all those who think that these sayings mean that little children are personally guilty of wilful sin and thereby under the wrath of God, these passages cannot honestly be pointing to any such thing. These passages cannot be taken to mean that all children are inherently evil, because if such was the case, then the holy Forerunner and Baptist John would not have been full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, nor would he have leaped for joy within Elizabeth's womb at the sound of the greeting of his Lord's mother.

Evidently, all children are not under the wrath of God, but perhaps only those who God foreknew would choose not to believe in Him. As children, however, they have not yet willfully embraced the sin of unbelief. If we, therefor, are not converted to become as all little children by nature are (i.e. humble and believing), then we shall by no means be able to receive the Kingdom of God: “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

 

[bling]

I disagree. Grace is an act of God, not a react. When James says "He gives more grace," the premise is that grace has already been given.
TD

God is gracious toward all of us, but not everyone accepts His grace as charity.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Yes, thank you, we too have heard the reading aloud of these passages in Scripture throughout much of the last thousands of years. Unfortunately for all those who think that these sayings mean that little children are personally guilty of wilful sin and thereby under the wrath of God, these passages cannot honestly be pointing to any such thing. These passages cannot be taken to mean that all children are inherently evil, because if such was the case, then the holy Forerunner and Baptist John would not have been full of the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, nor would he have leaped for joy within Elizabeth's womb at the sound of the greeting of his Lord's mother.

Evidently, all children are not under the wrath of God, but perhaps only those who God foreknew would choose not to believe in Him. As children, however, they have not yet willfully embraced the sin of unbelief. If we, therefor, are not converted to become as all little children by nature are (i.e. humble and believing), then we shall by no means be able to receive the Kingdom of God: “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)

These passages mean exactly that to those who believe.
John the Baptist was guilty of Adamic sin as are all persons who are conceived naturally.
If God saved him in the womb, that is His prerogative, as salvation is of the Lord.
Mt18:6 describes the children Jesus spoke of.
It clearly says...these children who BELIEVE IN ME..
To deny the fall and its sin and death to mankind is a denial of bn biblical truth.

 

[truefiction1]

These passages mean exactly that to those who believe.
John the Baptist was guilty of Adamic sin as are all persons who are conceived naturally.
If God saved him in the womb, that is His prerogative, as salvation is of the Lord.
Mt18:6 describes the children Jesus spoke of.
It clearly says...these children who BELIEVE IN ME..

Christ clearly most certainly says "unless you change and become like little children", according to Matthew's record (see Matthew 18:3), and so it must not be taken to mean only specific children the way that you are claiming, as if there are some children who believe and some who don't. In Matthew's account there were no specific children alluded to, and so it must be taken to mean little children "in general". If we wish to interpret all Scripture to fit with the philosophy of total depravity, the we will simply fail to see the truth that is right there before us, in the very Scripture we claim to be our one and only source of truth and guide.

To deny the fall and its sin and death to mankind is a denial of bn biblical truth.

John the Baptist and everyone else inherited only the consequences of Adam's sin, not the guilt of Adam's sin. We don't deny the fall, or that all are afflicted with mortality and with the disease of sin. We affirm these things as Biblical doctrines. But the image and likeness of God in fallen man was only badly damaged in the fall; it was not totally destroyed so that we can be said to be "totally depraved". The image and likeness of God in us remains a part of our being, even in the unbelieving person, even after the fall, no matter how tarnished and soiled it becomes.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Christ clearly most certainly says "unless you change and become like little children", according to Matthew's record (see Matthew 18:3), and so it must not be taken to mean only specific children the way that you are claiming, as if there are some children who believe and some who don't. In Matthew's account there were no specific children alluded to, and so it must be taken to mean little children "in general". If we wish to interpret all Scripture to fit with the philosophy of total depravity, the we will simply fail to see the truth that is right there before us, in the very Scripture we claim to be our one and only source of truth and guide.

John the Baptist and everyone else inherited only the consequences of Adam's sin, not the guilt of Adam's sin. We don't deny the fall, or that all are afflicted with mortality and with the disease of sin. We affirm these things as Biblical doctrines. But the image and likeness of God in fallen man was only badly damaged in the fall; it was not totally destroyed so that we can be said to be "totally depraved". The image and likeness of God in us remains a part of our being, even in the unbelieving person, even after the fall, no matter how tarnished and soiled it becomes.

TF,
We do not agree ,but we have both stated our positions.
Mt 18:6 says this;
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea

Spiritual death happened as the fall. Man lost all ability to understand spiritually.

 

[tdidymas]

1. Determinism, as I have used it here, is the belief that God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned arbitrarily before they are created. That is to say, God's will alone determines their fate. The will of the recipient of a fate is not a factor.

Here is the actual definition of determinism:
"the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

And you did use it according to this def. above, since you claimed that reformed theology basically puts God at the helm of evil actions of men. My point is that R.T. doesn't teach that.

2. I must deny, just as all Who have received the perfect, full, and complete revelation of the glory of God in the Person of Jesus Christ, that God is hardening anyone unless it is because those whom He is hardening are choosing not to believe in Him. God may harden whom He will, as it says, but God wills all men to be saved, as it says also (1 Timothy 2:4). So, unless God hardens men in order that their sins will be used by the Lord of history in order to produce the best outcome unto the salvation of all, (as we see in the way that He used the sins of the bothers of Joseph to ultimately bring goodness upon all of them), then such hardening does not accord with the glory of God revealed through Christ on His Cross, and this inevitably renders Christ to be only a partial, imperfect revelation of God: the part that Loves only a few, rather than loving and forgiving even those sinners whose unbelief has them crucifying the Lord of glory.

Like I said before, according to Rom. 3:10-18, Paul says that "no one understands," therefore, a person in their unregenerate state will never choose to believe in Him. According to Eph. 2:8-10, John 1:12-13, et. al., believing in Christ is a gift of God and is an act of God. Therefore, if anyone is to be saved, they must be predestined as Paul teaches. God then chooses a time in a person's life to grant the opening of his eyes and heart, and thereby changes the disposition of his heart. Then as that person hears (in the spirit) the gospel for the first time, they believe (as granted by God), and thereby choose to obey the gospel. This puts man in his rightful place, and gives God the glory. The "choosing to believe by free will" gives glory to man.

This is the inherent problem of theology that relies too much on the intellect and not enough on prayer in which we learn from God directly, by virtue of the intercession (help) of the Holy Spirit. Such theology has more in common with philosophy than with knowing God and Eternal Life.

Your assessment of it is simply not true.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

God gives grace to the humble, He resists the proud. Where does it say that God makes anyone proud, or arrogant, so as to want to believe in themselves rather than in God? Wouldn't it be okay to just accept that God does not give grace to the proud because they reject it by their own will (which, being in the image and likeness of God is their nature to have) but those who choose to receive humility can receive grace because they desire God, and so He shares Himself with them, as both they and He wills?

Does it not seem highly plausible, or rather extremely likely, that God's process of "hardening" is nothing more than His withholding of grace from those who don't truly want it or else are seeking it with evil motives (such as the sins of pride or vanity)? Is God the author of evil? Does God choose to make people to be evil? Or does it not seem more likely that God gives the unfathomably great gift of His image and likeness (freewill) to His most cherished creature (man), and they use this will to choose not to have His grace in them, the absence of which is the absence of goodness, light, and life; and the absence of these good things is defined as "evil"?

God's not the author of evil and does not predestine anyone to be evil. Badly used freewill is responsible for the existence of evil, and is why the ones who choose not to believe are lacking in grace (i.e. their hearts are hardened and their spiritual eyes are blind and ears cannot hear the blessed things that God would give to us all).

Like I said before, you assume too much, since R.T. doesn't teach what you claim here.
TD