Molinism

[EmSw]

3) There is only one Reformed theology (aside from minor variations). Westboro Baptist Cult is not even Christian, much less Reformed.

Westboro Baptist is a 5-point, Calvinist Church. http://godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.html

 

[DingDing]

Westboro Baptist is a 5-point, Calvinist Church. About Westboro Baptist Church

If so, then they were predestined to be what they are. Blame God and be done with it. (But of course, if this is true, then your blaming of God was also predestined by God - so He will take the blame for that as well, and so on and so forth, ad nausium.)

 

[TaylorSexton]

First, you must understand that the term 'Arminian' is many times one of convenience

So is "Calvinist." However, "Reformed" is defined by the Reformed confessional standards.

Jacobus Arminius was simply the first to set forth a biblical response challenging Calvin's doctrines as unbiblical.

That's not true. Calvin had many, many theological opponents in his own day.

You're making my point for me - there are many Calvinist factions that claim to be the only truly Reformed while dismissing all the other's claims as such because they don't meet their particular group's doctrinal standards. For instance, you summarily reject Amyraldians (otherwise known as 4-point or Moderate Calvinists) as not being Reformed although many of them, such as Bullinger and even some who signed the Canons of Dort held those beliefs while completely rejecting Arminianism.

Again proving my point. Reformed Baptists go back to the 1600's and include John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon. More currently, there's James White and also John Piper who was pastor of a Baptist church for over 30 years. You may reject them as not being sufficiently Reformed because they're Baptists but they certainly wouldn't classify themselves or qualify as Arminians!

Me too - you owe it to yourself and those you engage on these forums to clearly define what form of Calvinism you're associated with. First, I take it that you ascribe to all 5 points of TULIP. Second, are there any particular authors/teachers that you regard as best reflecting your own beliefs (John Gill, A.W. Pink, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, etc)?

I have the same response to all of these statements:

Reformed theology, no matter what you say, is defined by the Reformed confessional standards. If someone does not conform, they are by definition not Reformed. Otherwise words mean nothing (and they do not mean nothing). A group may be Calvinistic in soteriology, but that does not in any way make them Reformed. They are only Reformed if they hold to the Reformed confessional standards. It doesn't mean they are Arminians, but they are definitely not Reformed. That's like saying, "I have friend who is a Baptist, although he holds to Mormon theology—he claims to be Baptist, so he must be!" I am not talking about the so-called "truly Reformed." Most of those guys are borderline fanatics. Besides (and here I go again to my primary premise), they are also not the standard for Reformed orthodoxy—the confessions are.

As for your question about authors, it is irrelevant, because I consider the Reformed confessional standards to best reflect my beliefs. John Gill was not Reformed, neither was Charles Spurgeon, neither was A.W. Pink, neither is John Piper nor James White; they were/are Baptists to held/hold to a Calvinistic soteriology.

Furthermore, the Canons of Dordt forthrightly condemn anything short of five-point Calvinism, so if any Amyraldian signed that document, they were liars.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Westboro Baptist is a 5-point, Calvinist Church.

They claim to be Calvinistic in soteriology, sure; but, they are not Reformed. However, their sense of piety shows that they worship no one other than Satan himself. If they really are who they are portrayed to be, they will burn in hell for their hatred at the very hand of the God they claim to serve—and rightly so. Regardless, their behavior shows that, no matter what their outward confession may be, they do not hold to it.

They are not Christian, and are therefore irrelevant.

 

[TaylorSexton]

If so, then they were predestined to be what they are. Blame God and be done with it. (But of course, if this is true, then your blaming of God was also predestined by God - so He will take the blame for that as well, and so on and so forth, ad nausium.)

Patent misrepresentations like this, frankly, are the reason why Reformed people seem so angry all the time when trying to have profitable conversation with others. This is silly, friend.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

they will burn in hell for their hatred at the very hand of the God they claim to serve—and rightly so.

Yikes. Jonathan Edwards style.

 

[DingDing]

Patent misrepresentations like this, frankly, are the reason why Reformed people seem so angry all the time when trying to have profitable conversation with others. This is silly, friend.

My post was meant as more of a joke, but then I have known Reformed people who do believe, pretty much, along those lines.

 

[ArmorBearer]

That's not true. Calvin had many, many theological opponents in his own day.

Of course, but others such as Michael Servetus weren't as prominent - Arminius was a professor at Leiden University and wrote many books and treatises on theology. He was the vanguard and therefore became the namesake for all who regarded Calvinism as an unbiblical heresy.

Reformed theology is defined by the Reformed confessional standards. If someone does not conform, they are by definition not Reformed. A group may be Calvinistic in soteriology, but that does not in any way make them Reformed. They are only Reformed if they hold to the Reformed confessional standards.

So you affirm the Canons of Dort and probably ascribe to the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism - you're fundamentally a Dutch Reformed 5-point Calvinist and seem to regard all other Calvinists as deficient and/or unsaved. It's remarkable to me that you even condemn the Westboros who are also 5-pointers that teach, according to Article 10 of the Canons, that God only loves the elect and hates the rest of mankind who He has chosen to leave in their sin and ultimately destroy - they basically promote an unvarnished, unapologetic version of your exact limited gospel and beliefs, yet you regard them as not even being Christian, much less Reformed.

 

[TaylorSexton]

So you affirm the Canons of Dort and probably ascribe to the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism - you're fundamentally a Dutch Reformed 5-point Calvinist and seem to regard all other Calvinists as deficient and/or unsaved.

If you haven't noticed in my signature, I subscribe to the Westminster Standards, which contain the same theology as the Three Forms of Unity. I am disturbed that you gather from what I say that I think all non-Reformed people are unsaved. All I have said is that whoever does not conform to the Reformed standards are by definition not Reformed, just as any color which, when light is shown upon it, does not reflect back a light within the "blue" wavelength is by definition not blue. I do not appreciate you putting words into my mouth and thoughts into my heart that are not there. I am making no statement regarding anyone's salvation; rather, I am merely being fair with definitions for the sake of discussion. I would appreciate reciprocation.

It's remarkable to me that you even condemn the Westboros who are also 5-pointers that teach, according to Article 10 of the Canons, that God only loves the elect and hates the rest of mankind who He has chosen to leave in their sin and ultimately destroy - they basically promote an unvarnished, unapologetic version of your exact limited gospel and beliefs, yet you regard them as not even being Christian, much less Reformed.

Friend, this heated rhetoric I find to be unfitting for a believer. I am utterly offended at your assertion that my beliefs logically lead to Westbrook behavior. Any more rhetoric like this will get you reported without hesitation. Furthermore, I would expect far different from someone who professes our Lord. I would suggest a change of heart.

I say that Westboro is not Christian because of their reprehensible behavior. I can't imagine that anyone with a sound mind would disagree. Their behavior is entirely detached from their creed, detached from Christ, and detached from Scripture. If you seriously think that they represent a branch of Christianity, then, with all sincerity, I question your discernment. Lastly, the fact remains that they are not Reformed by definition, since the creed they falsely claim to profess is not Reformed, but Particular Baptist.

 

[TaylorSexton]

My post was meant as more of a joke, but then I have known Reformed people who do believe, pretty much, along those lines.

The definition of Reformed theology is the Reformed confessional standards, not people on a public forum.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Yikes. Jonathan Edwards style.

Do you disagree with my assessment of their behavior? I would certainly hope that you do not think Westboro cultists merit heaven by their conduct.

 

[ArmorBearer]

I am disturbed that you gather from what I say that I think all non-Reformed people are unsaved.
I am making no statement regarding anyone's salvation;

What I actually said was: "you seem to regard all other Calvinists as deficient and/or unsaved" based on your comments that any Amyraldians who ever claim allegiance to the Canons of Dort are liars (a character defect) and that the Westboros who are 5-pointers just as you are, are a cult and not even Christians -although they promote the same limited gospel as you do based on Article 10 of the Canons ie, that God elects a chosen few for salvation and hates the rest of mankind who He intends to destroy. Does their practice of merely openly proclaiming your commonly held beliefs somehow make them not Christians?

I would expect far different from someone who professes our Lord. I would suggest a change of heart.

I believe you're projecting - I haven't "put words into your mouth or thoughts into your heart that aren't there" but simply responded to what you've actually said. Any "heated rhetoric" certainly hasn't come from me.

 

[TaylorSexton]

What I actually said was: "you seem to regard all other Calvinists as deficient and/or unsaved" based on your comments that any Amyraldians who ever claim allegiance to the Canons of Dort are liars (a character defect) and that the Westboros who are 5-pointers just as you are, are a cult and not even Christians -although they promote the same limited gospel as you do based on Article 10 of the Canons ie, that God elects a chosen few for salvation and hates the rest of mankind who He intends to destroy. Does their practice of merely openly proclaiming your commonly held beliefs somehow make them not Christians?

It's very difficult to argue with straw men.

If I were vengeful, I could easily reciprocate and play that game by claiming that Arminianism teaches salvation by works or that Molinism makes God the Great Supercomputer in the Sky, but I don't, because those would be straw man arguments and not conducive to profitable discussion.

I would appreciate the same courtesy—that is, if you, too, care about honest and profitable discussion.

I believe you're projecting - I haven't "put words into your mouth or thoughts into your heart that aren't there" but simply responded to what you've actually said. Any "heated rhetoric" certainly hasn't come from me.

I beg to differ. Claiming that my theology leads to Westboro behavior is purely heated rhetoric.

 

[EmSw]

Do you disagree with my assessment of their behavior? I would certainly hope that you do not think Westboro cultists merit heaven by their conduct.

Why not? You seem to think they aren't Christian by their conduct.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Why not? You seem to think they aren't Christian by their conduct.

It just seemed to me that you disagreed with me about the fact that they, unless they repent, will be damned for their behavior.

My point it that it doesn't matter what your creed is, if your life does not reflect your creed, then you do not hold to that creed. The Epistle of James makes this same argument.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Do you disagree with my assessment of their behavior? I would certainly hope that you do not think Westboro cultists merit heaven by their conduct.

Well as you know no one merits heaven by their conduct, good or bad, but I was just taken aback at the confidence with which you assert any group as "hellbound".

 

[TaylorSexton]

Well as you know no one merits heaven by their conduct, good or bad, but I was just taken aback at the confidence with which you assert any group as "hellbound".

Paul did the same thing numerous times in his letters. I don't see a problem with calling their treachery against Christ and his gospel for what it is. If they do not repent, their fate awaits. I do not know why I should not be confident in saying that. Scripture speaks very strongly of those who profess to be believers yet blaspheme God's name by their works.

 

[DingDing]

The definition of Reformed theology is the Reformed confessional standards, not people on a public forum.

Sorry, but reformed theology is only defined theoricially on paper in confessional standards, the way it is defined and lived out by the reformed is the real definition

 

[TaylorSexton]

Sorry, but reformed theology is only defined theoricially on paper in confessional standards, the way it is defined and lived out by the reformed is the real definition

Of course, you realize (I hope) that I could apply that pursuit to anything, whether your creed or anyone else's—even the Christian faith itself. However, we know that the Christian faith is defined by Scripture and that anything that does not conform to Scripture is by definition not Christian, and that, therefore, not everyone who claims the name Christian is actually Christian (Matthew 7:21-23).

In the same way, anything that does not conform to the Reformed confessional standards is by definition not Reformed. These standards cover both doctrine and practice in the confessional statements and catechisms, respectively. Anything—doctrine, behavior, or otherwise—which does not conform to these standards is by definition not Reformed. Otherwise, words mean nothing. Of course, I am no fool: I can gather the reason you would wish it to be otherwise, because it allows you conveniently to commit both the association and ad hominem fallacies by associating Westboro Baptist with Reformed theology (even if they were saints, they still are not Reformed; they are Baptist). However, I will not allow you to do that.

Reformed theology is defined by the Reformed confessional standards—period.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Paul did the same thing numerous times in his letters. I don't see a problem with calling their treachery against Christ and his gospel for what it is. If they do not repent, their fate awaits. I do not know why I should not be confident in saying that. Scripture speaks very strongly of those who profess to be believers yet blaspheme God's name by their works.

Fair enough. Just comes across in the same spirit as that which you are judging, kinda made me raise my eyebrows and say "yikes!"