Basics or Reform

[JacksLadder]

O.k. so if I understand this correctly under reformed thinking we are all made by God but and have free will as according to our limited abilities. But God decides to bring some to his covenant while using others to show his wrath or for other purposes(such as the blind man who's purpose was to be healed by Jesus) .

And having seen many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming about his baptism, he said to them, 'Brood of vipers! who did shew you to flee from the coming wrath? bear, therefore, fruits worthy of the reformation, and do not think to say in yourselves, A father we have -- Abraham, for I say to you, that God is able out of these stones to raise children to Abraham, and now also, the axe unto the root of the trees is laid, every tree therefore not bearing good fruit is hewn down, and to fire is cast. 'I indeed do baptize you with water to reformation, but he who after me is coming is mightier than I, of whom I am not worthy to bear the sandals, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire, whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor, and will gather his wheat to the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.'-Matthew 3 Young's Literal Translation


Nay, but, O man, who art thou that art answering again to God? shall the thing formed say to Him who did form it, Why me didst thou make thus? hath not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make the one vessel to honor, and the one to dishonor? And if God, willing to shew the wrath and to make known His power, did endure, in much long suffering, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, -Romans 9 Young's literal translation
​

Basically all of us are to be used by God. Some of us are the elect called to God to holiness, unfortunately some are used by God to show his wrath. Is it fair for the Lion to kill the baby antelope? Not to the antelope but it is to the lion but they are both part of the plan of life that is being unfolded before us. We are called in our limited ability as humans to treat others like we wish to be treated, whether or not life is good or bad, fair or unfair.

Is this a good intro to Reformed thinking or am I way off?

 

[JacksLadder]

Title of thread should be basics of reform.

 

[heymikey80]

Yes, but it seems only part of the story. I would definitely take exception to the "used by God" phrase, but generally I think the rest could be fit together with the larger Reformed view. We're built a certain way to operate in God's creation. "Being used" is not a comprehensive way to express how God designs us, and designs us into Creation. It's actually a reductive way. And a truth reduced is a reduction of the truth. For more information, you may want to look into God's Providence, and the theological idea of Common Grace.

We spend a lot of time talking about "good" with only "good for us" in mind. What's truly right or wrong is in the final analysis, "not about us".

It's about a whole series of concerns and evaluations regarding God, His attributes, the Creation, Redemptive History, God's people, and human beings.

 

[hedrick]

JacksLadder seems to have summarized a common view of Reformed theology. And he got right the fact that God's control doesn't remove human responsibility.

I have two concerns. One is what I think heymikey80 is getting at: While Reformed theology certainly does talk about the sovereignty of God, I cringe when people present that as if it were the whole thing. I believe if you asked Calvin what he considered to be the heart of Christianity he would talk about God's love, our union with Christ, and redemption through it.

The other is the statement that God chose to use some to show his wrath. Calvin certainly says this, and it's a reasonable reading of one section of Romans (though in the context of Paul's overall argument it's not so clear that the people who are targets of his wrath remain so indefinitely). However to complete the picture I think it's important to say why it matters to us that God is in control in this way. When Calvin was in his more pastoral modes, his concern becomes clearer: he thinks it is important for us to understand that everything that happens is a gift from God, which he means to benefit us. That wouldn't be true if part of what happens is out of his control. Reformed thought is also concerned to say that God didn't just set up conditions that would let some of us get saved; he positively works in us to save us. The converse of his determination to work in some to save them is that he doesn't work in others, thus allowing them to show the kind of evil that results in their condemnation.

I think if you pushed Calvin as to why this distinction, he would say that we don't know. The Bible doesn't say why God chooses the way he does. He says in the Institutes that it is for God's glory. People have read that as saying that God glorifies in the destruction of some people. But I think what Calvin actually means is that while we don't know why some are not chosen, we have to believe that God has a reason that will bring glory to him.

 

[JacksLadder]

(though in the context of Paul's overall argument it's not so clear that the people who are targets of his wrath remain so indefinitely)

How so?

 

[hedrick]

The overall thrust of Paul's argument in Romans is that the Jews have rejected Christ, in accordance with a plan of God to spread salvation to the Gentiles. Once this has happened, he expects that all Jews will accept Christ and be saved.

The statements about God having mercy on whom he wishes are in 9:14ff. In 11 he says that God has not rejected his people. 11:11ff says that this was in order to provide an opportunity to the Gentiles. 11 initially mentions the possibility of the Jews accepting Christ as hypothetical, e.g. 11:12. But 11:25 says that the stubbornness of Israel is not permanent, but lasts only until the complete number of Gentiles has come to God (TEV translation). 11:32 says that God's plan is to show mercy to all.

The standard Reformed reading is that Paul is not teaching universalism here, but is only speaking of groups. Not all Jews rejected Christ originally, and it might be that not every one will accept him in the end. And at any rate those who died without faith are still in trouble.

However the whole argument from 9-11 is a unity. Surely when he talks in 11 about God's rejection and says it is temporary, he is talking about the rejection defended in 9:14ff. If (as most interpreters believe) 11:32 is not teaching universalism, then the whole passage, including 9:14ff, is primarily about Israel, not individuals, although he does at times talk about individuals.

Note that I am neither denying predestination nor proposing universalism. However I am warning against citing Rom 9 out of the context of Paul's overall argument.

Incidentally, this reading of Rom 11 disagrees with Calvin's. Calvin thinks that when Paul talks about all Israel in 11 he is speaking of spiritual Israel, not the nation. I think his reading is implausible. Interestingly, the Reformation Bible, for which R. C. Sproul is general editor, adopts the same reading I do.