Why are so many against reformed theology?

[FenderTL5]

Good day,

The crux of the issue is how you define "free-will" and "choice"

The reformed and in my mind biblical view is that a man is created with the ability to choose and does so freely.

The will is free to influence choice, seeing that choices are influenced those choices are not free from influence.

In the same way the will is free, but not free from influence. The question then becomes what influence the will to make the choices it does.

There are reasons why we chose what we do and do not.

Do desires influence the will
Do past experiences influence the will
Do external (out side of our wills influence our wills) things we can and not control
Do expectations influence our will

If the will is influenced in any way then it's freedom is restricted, and is only free to some degree.

RC covers some of those issues... as did Luther and Edwards

And also here: Reformed View of Free-will

In Him,

Bill

yes, but the challenge this presents in reformed/calvinism is that this self-determination can only be viewed though the lense of Total Depravity.. unless one is of the elect, then total depravity no longer applies.
This was briefly mentioned in the OP video, discussed as "want to."

 

[BBAS 64]

yes, but the challenge this presents in reformed/calvinism is that this self-determination can only be viewed though the lense of Total Depravity.. unless one is of the elect, then total depravity no longer applies.
This was briefly mentioned in the OP video, discussed as "want to."

Good day, Fender

Just so we are speaking with commonality:

Total depravity defined: TULIP and Reformed Theology: Total Depravity

I would say self-determination is always impacted in every way by one's self.

Not sure what you mean: "unless one is of the elect, then total depravity no longer applies."

Are you suggesting that the elect do not suffer from total depravity?

Can you help me understand... what you mean

In Him,

Bill

 

[Ceallaigh]

Good day,

The crux of the issue is how you define "free-will" and "choice"

The reformed and in my mind biblical view is that a man is created with the ability to choose and does so freely.

The will is free to influence choice, seeing that choices are influenced those choices are not free from influence.

In the same way the will is free, but not free from influence. The question then becomes what influence the will to make the choices it does.

There are reasons why we chose what we do and do not.

Do desires influence the will
Do past experiences influence the will
Do external (out side of our wills influence our wills) things we can and not control
Do expectations influence our will


Consider:

What would cause a person to choose the light he hates over the darkness he loves?

If the will is influenced in any way then it's freedom is restricted, and is only free to some degree.


RC covers some of those issues... as did Luther and Edwards

And also here: Reformed View of Free-will

In Him,

Bill

I get what you're saying, but it still comes down to selected and not selected and there's no way whatsoever to change those preassigned positions.

 

[BBAS 64]

I get what you're saying, but it still comes down to selected and not selected and there's no way whatsoever to change those preassigned positions.

Good day, Ordinary Christian

So am I to assume we see "free-will" the same way...?

So the preassigned reality of condemnation and Justice for all those "in Adam" is problematic for sure. There is nothing whatsoever we can do.

But God!

In Him,

Bill

 

[FenderTL5]

Not sure what you mean: "unless one is of the elect, then total depravity no longer applies."
Are you suggesting that the elect do not suffer from total depravity?

Can you help me understand... what you mean

In Him,

Bill

I'm surprised that confused you.
It's part of the TULIP usually covered under the U and I
predicated first on the "U", that is God choosing to sovereignly bestow His grace on some sinners and withhold His grace from other sinners;

To paraphrase Sproul, Irresistable Grace is so powerful that it has the capacity to overcome Total Depravity. It changes the inclination or "want to" of our wills. Sproul says it directly this way, "The reason we want to come to Christ is because God has already done a work of grace in our souls. Without that work, we would never have any desire to come to Christ. That's why we say that regeneration precedes faith."

Does that jive with your understanding?
If yes, then Total Depravity is no longer "total" in the elect, those that are the benefit of this Divine selection. I suppose it could still be partial depravity but that confuses things even further.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Good day, Ordinary Christian

So am I to assume we see "free-will" the same way...?

To me free will means you can either choose to be a believer or choose not to be a believer. That it's up to you to make that choice. And also to have the ability to change your mind about that choice.

So the preassigned reality of condemnation and Justice for all those "in Adam" is problematic for sure. There is nothing whatsoever we can do.

Then we do not have free will in choosing to be a believer, and we are essentially like programmed robots in that regard. Which is a major reason why so many Christians are against that theology.

 

[BobRyan]

Reformed theology does not teach that God brings the elect “kicking and screaming, against their wills,” into his kingdom.

Indeed - that is where the "zaaaap" I mentioned comes in.

It teaches that God so works in the hearts of the elect as to make them willing and pleased to come to Christ.

Which is the other way to say "zaap"?

Does it explain "He came to His own and His own received Him not"? John 1:11. In this case it is God that initiates the action "He came to His own".

If one is using the "zaap" form of the idea - then John 1:11 cannot exist
If they use the Arminian form of "draws all mankind" then John 1:11-12 makes sense.

They come to Christ because they want to. They want to because God has created in their hearts a desire for Christ.

ok - but just so you know -- that is the zap in its longer statement.

The Arminian view is that all are depraved... God supernaturally draws all - but NOT to the point of "zaaap" - so then all can choose and no longer have the problem of "not ABLE to make the right choice". In the Arminian view there is no such thing as suddenly being preprogrammed to make the right choice.

 

[BBAS 64]

To me free will means you can either choose to be a believer or choose not to be a believer. That it's up to you to make that choice. And also to have the ability to change your mind about that choice.

Then we do not have free will in choosing to be a believer, and we are essentially like programmed robots in that regard. Which is a major reason why so many Christians are against that theology.

Good day, Ordinary Christian

Yes we do have a free-will to believe or not to believe... we have a free-will to do or not do a lot of thing.

But the will is influenced by things it does not control. What do you think is the instrumental cause that for making the choice freely to belive.

2 people hear the same Gospel at the same time in the same place with the same personal back round why does one believe and one does not.


I would not say robots as they do not have minds, wills, experiences, or desires. But I do understand the mischaracterization.

I would say that men who love darkness and hate light will always choose (freely) darkness because they love it and can do no other so they do no other.



In Him,

Bill

 

[BobRyan]

So the preassigned reality of condemnation and Justice for all those "in Adam" is problematic for sure. There is nothing whatsoever we can do.

But God!

Both the Arminian and the Calvinist models begin there.

The difference is what comes after "But God" -- so then "But God did what"?

preprogrammed?
zapped?
enabled choice for all mankind but did not force it?

 

[Jamdoc]

Why are so many against reformed theology?


Stephen Lawson, RC Sproul and MacArthur answer the question. They all answer from their own perspective.

Because it means God creates some people just to torture forever.
It means that statements like "him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." and "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." become dubious statements.
How can you claim an open invitation but then the choice of whether a person repents or not is entirely up to you, it makes that invitation false.
Yes I'm aware of election, but the way it can work and still be an open invitation is God chooses those who He knew would choose Him. that is the one way God could desire everyone's salvation, and yet not everyone gets saved, some element of human choice has to be at play in opposition to God's will so that God cannot choose them as they'd never choose Him.

Otherwise, you cannot say God has a will to save everyone because He chose some and excluded others. That would be His choice and then that means He chose to create people just to suffer.

 

[Aaron112]

Otherwise, you cannot say God has a will to save everyone because He chose some and excluded others. That would be His choice and then that means He chose to create people just to suffer.

Or, (not knowing the details of different groups about this)
God Created men to live His Life.
He saves all men who obey Him.
He would save the others also, if they would obey Him, but they refuse.
So God would that all men be healed/ saved,
but left free will in them so they could choose not to obey Him if they wanted to do that , whether wittingly or unwittingly; knowingly or unknowingly.

i.e. He chose to create people , His people suffer necessarily but gain eternal life in Jesus; not His people suffer more or less on earth, but do not gain eternal life as they do not become living souls abiding in Jesus God's Way.

 

[BBAS 64]

I'm surprised that confused you.
It's part of the TULIP usually covered under the U and I
predicated first on the "U", that is God choosing to sovereignly bestow His grace on some sinners and withhold His grace from other sinners;

To paraphrase Sproul, Irresistable Grace is so powerful that it has the capacity to overcome Total Depravity. It changes the inclination or "want to" of our wills. Sproul says it directly this way, "The reason we want to come to Christ is because God has already done a work of grace in our souls. Without that work, we would never have any desire to come to Christ. That's why we say that regeneration precedes faith."

Does that jive with your understanding?
If yes, then Total Depravity is no longer "total" in the elect, those that are the benefit of this Divine selection. I suppose it could still be partial depravity but that confuses things even further.

Good day, Fender

God can have Mercy on whoever he chooses, does he not have that that right as Creator?

Yes that does jive... "The key word is overcome"

I guess that would depend on what is meant by "total" I think the article I post by RC addresses that.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Ceallaigh]

Yes we do have a free-will to believe or not to believe... we have a free-will to do or not do a lot of thing.

But the will is influenced by things it does not control. What do you think is the instrumental cause that for making the choice freely to belive.

2 people hear the same Gospel at the same time in the same place with the same personal back round why does one believe and one does not.


I would not say robots as they do not have minds, wills, experiences, or desires. But I do understand the mischaracterization.

I would say that men who love darkness and hate light will always choose (freely) darkness because they love it and can do no other so they do no other.

Apparently according to reformed theology the reason why two people hear the same Gospel at the same time in the same place with the same personal background and one believes and one does not, is because Jack has been elected to believe and Jill has not.

And absolutely nothing can change that for Jill. Even if Jill wants to be believe and be saved, she can't no matter what, because she isn't one of the elect. Maybe Jill even thinks she believes and is saved, but she is still destined for eternal torment because she's not one of the elect.

She along with many will be in for a horrific surprise when they die and Jesus says ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Matt 7:23) ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt 25:41).

 

[BBAS 64]

Because it means God creates some people just to torture forever.
It means that statements like "him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." and "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." become dubious statements.
How can you claim an open invitation but then the choice of whether a person repents or not is entirely up to you, it makes that invitation false.
Yes I'm aware of election, but the way it can work and still be an open invitation is God chooses those who He knew would choose Him. that is the one way God could desire everyone's salvation, and yet not everyone gets saved, some element of human choice has to be at play in opposition to God's will so that God cannot choose them as they'd never choose Him.

Otherwise, you cannot say God has a will to save everyone because He chose some and excluded others. That would be His choice and then that means He chose to create people just to suffer.

Good day, Jamdoc

Not that any of this was referred to in the op... I have to ask did you watch it?

ok quickly did God create people he knew would be in hell for all eternity?

not willing that any should perish The any here is a pronoun to which noun does it refer.

tis
Thayer Definition:
1) a certain, a certain one
2) some, some time, a while
Part of Speech: pronoun



Repentance and belief are "granted" gifts by God.

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,
engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

God knows who will choose him because He grants Faith and repentance... If he does not grant them we can not and therefore would not believe or repent.

Again, did God create people he knew would be in hell for all eternity?

In Him,

Bill

 

[Ceallaigh]

God can have Mercy on whoever he chooses, does he not have that that right as Creator?

Yes God has that sovereign right. But the question is, is that how He operates? Does He purposely withhold mercy from most?

 

[BBAS 64]

Apparently according to reformed theology the reason why two people hear the same Gospel at the same time in the same place with the same personal background and one believes and one does not, is because Jack has been elected to believe and Jill has not.

And absolutely nothing can change that for Jill. Even if Jill wants to be believe and be saved, she can't no matter what, because she isn't one of the elect. Maybe Jill even thinks she believes and is saved, but she is still destined for eternal torment because she's not one of the elect.

She along with many will be in for a horrific surprise when they die and Jesus says ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Matt 7:23) ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt 25:41).

Good day, Ordinary Christian

Changing your qualifier from seems to apparently, that is progress.

It could in fact be as Jesus said he never Knew them... nothing at all to do with them, but what Jesus did not do (verb)


Thayer Definition:
1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
1a) to become known
2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
2a) to understand
2b) to know
3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
4) to become acquainted with, to know
Part of Speech: verb

so would you answer my question....

2 people hear the same Gospel at the same time in the same place with the same personal back round why does one believe and one does not.

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Yes God has that sovereign right. But the question is, is that how He operates? Does He purposely withhold mercy from most?

Good day,

I would say if he withholds it from one he has the free will to withhold it from all if that pleases him.

But we know he does not and that is Amazing Grace.

I will have Mercy on whom I have Mercy.

I am sure he would have a purpose in doing so yes, and that purpose is defacto' good and loving.

In Him,
Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Does God desire all men to be saved....

RC Sproul:

 

[Ceallaigh]

Good day, Ordinary Christian

Changing your qualifier from seems to apparently, that is progress.

The words are interchangeable in conveying that it appears to be.

It could in fact be as Jesus said he never Knew them... nothing at all to do with them, but what Jesus did not do (verb)


Thayer Definition:
1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
1a) to become known
2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
2a) to understand
2b) to know
3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
4) to become acquainted with, to know
Part of Speech: verb

I'd go with ἔγνων (egnōn) to come to know, recognize, perceive.

so would you answer my question....

2 people hear the same Gospel at the same time in the same place with the same personal back round why does one believe and one does not.

I already answered that question from the reformed point of view as I understand it. Aside from reformed theology, several factors come into play.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Does God desire all men to be saved....

RC Sproul:

That doesn't address the crux of the problem most Christians have with reformed theology thorough, which is predestination.