Maybe I don't understand contemporary reformed theology as well those who spend all of their time studying the reformation. I would rather spend my study time studying God and His word. That's my problem with reformed philosophy, it doesn't line up with the scripture. You say I misrepresent the reformation, really? Tell me that the "T" in tulip doesn't stand for "total depravity," meaning that all good, (God's image) was defeated in man by the darkness of sin. Tell me that the "I" doesn't mean that all who God desires to save cannot resist salvation. Then tell me that if those chosen by God can't resist salvation and those not chosen have no hope, and if God really desires all to come to life, how the vast majority of humanity goes to Hell for eternity. If God desires all to come to life, yet is unable to save any but a tiny few, who, in your philosophy, does the choosing? It can't be God, He wants all to be saved, at least according to the Bible. But I don't think that it is the Bible that is wrong. I think that it is the man's teaching known as reformed theology that is wrong. So I misrepresent reformed theology? How, by citing it's most fundamental tenants and contrasting them with the scripture they oppose?
You say I lie. When? When I quote the tenants of reformed theology or when I cite the scriptural principles those tenants oppose?
jiminpa,
First of all, you have a very hostile, uncharitable way about you. I can sense you anger even in the words of yours I read on my screen. I must point that out, as it certainly doesn't help your case in anyone's eyes. Regardless, I will try to continue with charitable and (hopefully) edifying discussion.
As a preface, the issue is not that you refute Reformed theology; it is that you offer up what you
think Reformed theology teaches, refute that, and then think you have refuted Reformed theology. This is why it is so frustrating at times having these conversations, because we spend more time debunking myths than we do actually discussing our points of doctrine. That being said, I will try to address your individual assertions below.
You say, "Maybe I don't understand contemporary reformed theology as well those who spend all of their time studying the reformation. I would rather spend my study time studying God and His word." Sir, what do you think the Reformers did? They surely didn't spend time on ecumenical forums misrepresenting their opponents' views. Do you realize that the entire Reformation started because one man sat down and studied Paul's Epistle to the Romans in the original language for himself rather than listen to the church? You then say, "That's my problem with reformed philosophy, it doesn't line up with the scripture." That really is a bold statement for someone that has hardly quoted any Scripture to defend such an assertion. To say that Reformed theology does not line up with Scripture (and is therefore, by inference, anti-Christian), is to throw many out of the faith, including some of the greatest evangelists, preachers, missionaries and theologians that have ever lived in the world, people like Calvin, Beza, Luther, Owen, Gill, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards, Carey, Bavinck, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, Lloyd-Jones, Piper, Dever, and many, many more. Are none of these people, then, genuine believers?
Second, you seem to believe that all Reformed theology is is the so-called "TULIP." Do you realize that it is not Reformed theology that formulated these five doctrines, but the Arminian party who opposed them? Even so, your misunderstanding of the doctrines is clear even from the first letter. You say, "Tell me that the 'T' in tulip doesn't stand for 'total depravity,' meaning that all good, (God's image) was defeated in man by the darkness of sin." This is completely wrong. All Reformed theologians believe that God's image is still there, just corrupt. Arminians believe this, too, sir. Total depravity does not mean that the image of God is "defeated" (what does that even mean?). No, it means that every part of a person—their mind, their will, their emotions, their body, etc.—has been affected by sin. It is a statement of extensiveness of sin, not intensity. Here are a few Scripture passages that indicate this: Gen. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10-11, 8:5-8; Eph. 2:1.
Third, you say, "Tell me that the 'I' doesn't mean that all who God desires to save cannot resist salvation." This is also another misrepresentation, partly because of the misleading title (I prefer "Invincible" or "Effectual Grace"). You make it seem as if God saves someone kicking and screaming against their depraved will. This is simply not the case. This doctrine merely says that those whom God has graciously regenerated and given a new heart, will surely choose God of their own will, because their will has been wonderfully changed. They would not resist, because a person with a changed heart wants God. Here are some Scripture references that indicate this: Jn. 5:21, 6:37-39, 44, 65; Eph. 2:1-5; Phil. 1:6, 29.
Fourth, you ask, "If God desires all to come to life, yet is unable to save any but a tiny few, who, in your philosophy, does the choosing?" Where in Reformed theology do you see that it teaches that God is "unable to save" anyone. To the absolute contrary, the very pillar of Reformed theology is that the sovereign God can and will save whomever he wills, without fail. You keep referring to 1 Tim. 2:4, as if that is a blanket refute of Reformed theology. Sir, do you not think that the Reformers were quite aware of this passage, and all the others like it? Surely you do not think Calvin, Luther, and Beza, and their friends to be that ignorant and lazy, do you, especially considering Calvin wrote
the Protestant systematic theology of the Reformation? I suggest, instead of forming your own judgments on what you
think Reformed theology teaches, that you reference the man himself:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_timothy/2.htm.
Finally, you ask, "So I misrepresent reformed theology?" I answer with a fully-confident "Yes." Again, the problem is not that you refute Reformed theology, but that you present what
you believe Reformed theology to be teaching (for all intents and purposes a straw man), refute that, and in this way you feel that you have refuted Reformed theology, when in reality all you have refuted is your own distorted view of Reformed theology, which is, quite frankly, not Reformed theology at all. I say again, it is very apparent that you have put forth no effort whatsoever to even begin to understand Reformed theology. At least, I hope such is the case; I would hate to think that the very erroneous conclusions you have drawn are based on an actual reading of the works of Reformed theologians, for that would be a sad case on your part. I truly hope your misunderstanding is out of ignorance or laziness and not lack of intelligence or malice based on hearsay from like-minded individuals.
To finish off, I would like to offer you a link to a page to my blog that has four of the major Reformed statements of faith from the 16th and 17th Centuries in Europe. Three of them have extensive Scripture references (proving at least that your assertion of lack of Scriptural support is truly in error). They will do a much better job than I have here in this post defending their own positions (to which I happen to subscribe myself; see my signature), especially the "Three Forms of Unity," from which the so-called "Five Points" originated. Again, these are first-hand sources from the men themselves. If, after a thorough reading of this, however, you still have concerns or questions, please feel free to message me, and I would love to continue in our discussion. As for this present thread, I will no longer engage myself, not because I feel have no defense against your assertions (which I hope I have demonstrated to be based on false assumptions), but because I truly have no interest in converting people to Reformed Theology, especially here on a board of which I am not a part. I do not wish to intrude or cause strife or quarrels, but merely to present my case and move on, in hopes that misunderstandings might be cleared up. I hope they were.
Here is the link to the resources on my blog:
https://taylorlsexton.wordpress.com/resources/
Blessings, brother.
