Reformed theology scares me.

[zoidar]

Of course they do..they know that what it means an even Calvin supposedly agreed: Calvin even sympathetically declares "I confess that this decree ought to appal us", specifically, when we think of reprobation according to human reason alone (Wendel 281), http://www.reformedtheology.ca/calvin.html

Unconditional election means that no condition was found in those HE elected to cause HIM to elect them nor was any condition found in those who were left to reprobation to cause HIM to pass over them for election. Everyone was totally equal in not having any condition in themselves that caused their election or reprobation. Period.

After accepting this they then go against Calvin and say that '...but the decision to elect some and not others was NOT arbitrary, ie , not based upon a choice based upon no reason at all' because they understand that this is untenable to everyone but Calvin.

My full study of this topic is chapter length but i will post it if requested...

Unconditional election means unconditional non-election, people being damned before they ever sinned, a phrase which denotes their innocence. Unconditional election means everyone was just as acceptable for election as everyone but some did not receive it.

1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the ELECT angels. Since there are elect angels we can assume that the demonic angels were passed over for election or not considered for election. Angels do not presumably have any racial solidarity, ie, they all are holy or sinful by their own choice, not by anyone else's choice. So now we have to answer the question: were some elected before or after the fall of the Satanic rebellion?

IF they were elected / chosen before the fall then there is no stated reason for the non-election of the others. Unconditional, unmerited, election then also means unconditional unmerited non-election, ie, for no lack of merit or sinful condition at all some were passed over for salvation and NOT chosen to be saved if they should ever sin.

What can we make of such a supposition? Can we say it is loving? Righteous? Just? The best we can say is HE is sovereign and if HE chose this way then who are you to argue, which is not a real answer at all. Why teach us HE is loving, righteous and just if it has no meaning in the biggest question in their existence: Why were some passed over for election!!!

[ASIDE: It is entirely possible that the decision for some to receive unconditional unmerited election and others to receive unmerited rejection for election with no indication that this decision was loving, righteous or just could have precipitated the Satanic war in heaven when the non-elect were subject to a decision that was NOT loving, righteous or just so they committed themselves to war, putting their faith in the belief that YHWH was a false god and a liar, unworthy of being their GOD.]


This is what unconditional implies. It implies 'no reason', not just an 'unknown reason' because if there was a reason there would be merit to being on the side of the reason. Unconditional election means everyone was just as acceptable for election as everyone but some did not receive it....that is what 'without merit' also means! That does NOT sound like YHWH at all. IF they were passed over for a evil they did then there is a righteous reason to their being passed over and to the election of those that were not passed over but who got the promise of election because they did not do that evil!!

IF election was a response to the Satanic rebellion to reward those angels who did not rebel and to pass over those angels who did rebel and condemn them on the spot, then election by merit makes sense. Their rebellion to the command to put their faith in the Son and to love one another which they heard in the beginning* is then the reason they were passed over to be HIS Bride. The choice by some to accept HIM as their GOD and to put their faith in in HIS Son was then the reason they were elected based upon the merit of this choice to obey the commandment.

*1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. I believe that John is referring to the loving purpose GOD has for each of us: 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

Thus we probably have a precedent in the angels for election being based upon merit and proper free will decisions being the condition of being elected. And since unconditional election is apparently false in the first people elected, I strongly suggest that it is also wrongly used for sinful men who were also elected in the beginning before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1:4.

Thanks, I won't write more in the thread about this question, for the sake of the OP.

 

[zoidar]

TULIP and Reformed Theology: Unconditional Election

^^^ read this

Thanks, I'm leaving this discussion now for another time, for the sake of the OP.

 

[ViaCrucis]

4.) are Martin Luthers teachings correct,because I know they lead the e reformation.

A couple of important things of note to say about Luther, speaking as a Lutheran here,

1) Luther said a lot of things, and just because Luther said something doesn't mean it was good, or true, or godly. In fact Luther wrote a lot of things that Lutheran outright reject and which anyone with a conscience should reject--the most damning example would be his grotesque and abominable things he said about the Jewish people. Luther's antisemitism wasn't entirely uncommon for his time, but it was still (as I understand it) extremely vitriolic even in the context and by the standards of 16th century Western Europe.

2) Luther is important to the Reformation because of his teaching on the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith; a position that Luther himself and his other Evangelical (which when talking about the Protestant Reformation means "Lutheran" here) contemporaries understood as first and foremost biblical, and also present in the historic teachings of the fathers, especially St. Augustine of Hippo. So it's not about "Luther's teaching on Justification" as such, but rather the Christian teaching on Justification, as per Luther and the other Evangelical fathers.

3) Martin Luther and John Calvin shared similar ideas, and Calvin agreed with Luther on a number of really important points, including the most important: Justification. But Luther and Calvin differed in important and substantial ways. One way this has been described is that Martin Luther was the last medieval theologian, and John Calvin was the first modern theologian. So even though Luther and Calvin do agree on many things, they don't always mean precisely the same thing even when they use the same or similar language.

4) Lutheranism isn't based on Luther, rather the material body of theological work that expresses and encapsulates what it means to be "Lutheran" is found in what are called the Lutheran Confessions, which are usually grouped together into a single volume known as the "Book of Concord". Which, of course, Lutherans believe to be solidly biblical and historically faithful to the catholic and apostolic Christian faith of the Church.

Final point: I'm obviously very biased, seeing as I'm a Lutheran. But I'd say that if you are finding yourself terrified of Reformed/Calvinist language, you may find something extremely beneficial by looking at the Evangelical (Lutheran) side of the Reformation. For Lutherans the doctrines of predestination and election are not cause for fear and dread, but cause for joy--because predestination does not mean that God picks some and not others, but rather that God has chosen you. You are chosen, and you can be confident in this because there are visible, clear, external reminders of this.

Luther would remind people that even when they bathe to take a moment to remember their baptism. Regular ordinary water, because it has been connected to God's word and promise in the Sacrament of Baptism, can itself afford us an opportunity to remember God's love for us in Jesus Christ, and our precious and generous salvation from God through Him.

God's use of the visible, external elements of creation to communicate His love and grace means that these things can be opportunities to remember, to reflect upon, all of God's grace, mercy, and kindness toward us.

God is not found in the "glory" of the present age, but in the smallness of the world. Jesus took ordinary bread and ordinary wine and gave them saying, "This is My body" and "This is My blood" in which there is forgiveness of our sins, because it is the true body and blood of Jesus which we receive "in and under" the bread and wine of Communion. Jesus said that we are born again by our new birth of water and the Spirit--that's Baptism. So these small things--bread, wine, water--are visible tokens of God's love and grace, and they aren't merely "symbolic" of this, they actually contain and convey that love and grace in our lives. Water can't save us, but God can, and in the same way that the Israelites passed through sea to the safety on the other side, so has God delivered us through mere and meager water into the safety of Christ our Lord.

We can look to the visible suffering of Christ, and we do not see the absence of God in the suffering of Christ on the cross; but the fullness of God. God does not hide His face in the cross, but rather God's face is made plain to the world. The selfless giving of Christ, of Himself to sinners and the whole world, is the fullest expression of God being Himself.

God doesn't guard Himself up in a castle. The King is not found in a palace, but tilling the mud with peasants and serfs.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I recently read an article by cross way that listed “false accusations” against reformed thology(Calvinists) and they had a passage form the synod of Dort that said Gods wrath is upon those who falsely accuse against the theology.I don’t identify as a Calvinist because the doctrine scares me,and this recent week I’ve had tremendous anxiety all because of an article I read by a Calvinist.I said in a previous post that “I hate reformed theology” but now I’m scared Gods wrath will be upon me for not being a Calvinist.

I have a few questions for any Calvinists out there:

1.)Since I have OCD,and struggle to feel love for God,have unwanted doubts,and fear I’m not one of his elect,does that mean I’m not one of his elect?
2.) Does following Arminian theology make me a heretic and an apostate?
3.)Do I have to be a Calvinist to be saved?
4.) are Martin Luthers teachings correct,because I know they lead the e reformation.
5.)This is a big one,I constantly doubt if I’m an elect and fear God doesn’t love me,Does God love me?

Jumping over pages of responses...i just want to answer your question honestly from my SDA fundamental beliefs without being influenced by answers here...

I have looked up Arminianism on wikipedia (I am not particularly familiar with that world view) and based on its 5 principles:

1. Salvation (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the graciously enabled faith (or unbelief) of man;
2. The Atonement is qualitatively adequate for all men, "yet that no one actually enjoys [experiences] this forgiveness of sins, except the believer ..." and thus is limited to only those who trust in Christ;
3. "That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will", and unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God's will;
4. The (Christian) Grace "of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of any good", yet man may resist the Holy Spirit; and
5. Believers are able to resist sin through Grace, and Christ will keep them from falling; but whether they are beyond the possibility of ultimately forsaking God or "becoming devoid of grace ... must be more particularly determined from the Scriptures."

If one is simply to follow the above principles, (I could nitpick a one or two finer details) to be absolutely honest, i dont see how you could be called an apostate or lost. The most important thing is your faith in Jesus. A specific denominations doctrines are always secondary to your faith in Jesus.

Revelation 14:12 says:

12Here is a call for the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.​

and the apostle Paul taught in Acts 16:29-31

29Calling for lights, the jailer rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30Then he brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” ​

 

[covid-19v1]

I don't know the depth of the doctrines of Calvinism, but when I share people the teachings of the sovereignty of God, people accuse me of Calvinism (as if that's a crime). But I'm just sharing what the Bible says.

An example is when I tried to point out what exactly is written in John 6:44, the response I got was "Calvinism is a false doctrine". What kind of argument is that?

Do Calvinists believe that God predestined people to hell? People accusing me of Calvinism would sometimes throw in a "God did not predestinate people to hell" as an argument against predestination of saved people. Well, I don't believe God would need to predestinate people to hell, because that would result to double predestination (and can't find that in the Bible). It's like electing who you want as president, then also electing who you don't want as president.

And there's only the Book of Life...I don't think you could find a Book of the Damned (or whatever) mentioned in the Bible.

 

[hedrick]

Do Calvinists believe that God predestined people to hell? People accusing me of Calvinism would sometimes throw in a "God did not predestinate people to hell" as an argument against predestination of saved people. Well, I don't believe God would need to predestinate people to hell, because that would result to double predestination (and can't find that in the Bible). It's like electing who you want as president, then also electing who you don't want as president.

And there's only the Book of Life...I don't think you could find a Book of the Damned (or whatever) mentioned in the Bible.

If you’re using Calvinist to mean TULIP, they do believe in predestination to Hell. The basic assumption behind Calvinism is that we are unable to have saving faith on our own. We need God’s grace. If he gives it, we are saved. The obvious implication is that if he doesn’t we are not saved. Note that there's a difference. God actively works in the hearts of those he saves, to change them. The others he merely leaves alone. But by not saving them, he is allowing them to be damned. We have to assume he intends both results.

There are a couple of ways to avoid this, though they have their own problems. The main way is to assume that our condition isn’t quite so bad. Responding to God is within the capability of most people. Then he doesn’t have to decide who to save.

But that raises its own problems. It ascribes the difference between who is saved and who is not to the person. But we don’t choose either our basic character or our experiences. If you believe in God’s omnipotence, he is responsible for history, and thus indirectly for who is saved.

To avoid that you pretty much have to believe both that responding to God is within human capability and that there is an inherent unpredictability in the world, so that even God doesn’t know the full consequences of how he set the world up. Because the moment you assume he does, then his plan in setting up the world includes the identity of those who are saved and who are not. It’s reasonable to say that when he makes choices, knowing their consequences, he chooses the results of his choices.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

If you’re using Calvinist to mean TULIP, they do believe in predestination to Hell. The basic assumption behind Calvinism is that we are unable to have saving faith on our own. We need God’s grace. If he gives it, we are saved. The obvious implication is that if he doesn’t we are not saved. Note that there's a difference. God actively works in the hearts of those he saves, to change them. The others he merely leaves alone. But by not saving them, he is allowing them to be damned. We have to assume he intends both results.

There are a couple of ways to avoid this, though they have their own problems. The main way is to assume that our condition isn’t quite so bad. Responding to God is within the capability of most people. Then he doesn’t have to decide who to save.

But that raises its own problems. It ascribes the difference between who is saved and who is not to the person. But we don’t choose either our basic character or our experiences. If you believe in God’s omnipotence, he is responsible for history, and thus indirectly for who is saved.

To avoid that you pretty much have to believe both that responding to God is within human capability and that there is an inherent unpredictability in the world, so that even God doesn’t know the full consequences of how he set the world up. Because the moment you assume he does, then his plan in setting up the world includes the identity of those who are saved and who are not. It’s reasonable to say that when he makes choices, knowing their consequences, he chooses the results of his choices.

This view is an interesting one however it ignores a fundamental Christian doctrine...salvation is never Gods choice, it is OUR choice!

God offered his son as the wages of ALL sin and the salvation that may be gained as a result of the Saviour dying for our sins is a FREE GIFT to anyone who chooses to take it.

I repeat again a text i quoted in my last post...yes the Holy spirit leads however ultimately, leading a horse to water does not hydrate said horse...one must

"believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved"! ​

That is the start and the end of the entire debate on this...there are no other conditions and everything else is just fluff and hot air.

Jesus didn't complicate the gospel, he said that in fact, it's so simple a child can understand it, however, adults who overthink and overcomplicate it, need to become like children to get it! We need to humble ourselves...calling people outside of any denomination apostates I would argue is a fault with the denomination, not the individual who is an apparent outcast!

 

[ViaCrucis]

If you’re using Calvinist to mean TULIP, they do believe in predestination to Hell. The basic assumption behind Calvinism is that we are unable to have saving faith on our own. We need God’s grace. If he gives it, we are saved. The obvious implication is that if he doesn’t we are not saved. Note that there's a difference. God actively works in the hearts of those he saves, to change them. The others he merely leaves alone. But by not saving them, he is allowing them to be damned. We have to assume he intends both results.

There are a couple of ways to avoid this, though they have their own problems. The main way is to assume that our condition isn’t quite so bad. Responding to God is within the capability of most people. Then he doesn’t have to decide who to save.

But that raises its own problems. It ascribes the difference between who is saved and who is not to the person. But we don’t choose either our basic character or our experiences. If you believe in God’s omnipotence, he is responsible for history, and thus indirectly for who is saved.

To avoid that you pretty much have to believe both that responding to God is within human capability and that there is an inherent unpredictability in the world, so that even God doesn’t know the full consequences of how he set the world up. Because the moment you assume he does, then his plan in setting up the world includes the identity of those who are saved and who are not. It’s reasonable to say that when he makes choices, knowing their consequences, he chooses the results of his choices.

There's always the third option of Lutheranism. God loves us and wills that everyone be saved, and He accomplishes this in and for us by giving us faith. Predestination for the elect doesn't mean the predestination of the reprobate--it simply means that God chose us in Christ, a choice made in love for a world filled with sick and helpless sinners. Predestination is still predestination, but it doesn't mean anyone is outside of God's love and compassion and grace, the Gospel is efficacious for all.

The only thing standing between us and God's grace is us. But the Gospel is bigger than us, the grace of God is stronger than our sin, and even the most hateful, stubborn, and most "reprobate" can be saved because God's word is living, active, and accomplishes what He sets it forth to accomplish.

The only people "in hell" will be those who actively and deliberately want to be "there".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

There's always the third option of Lutheranism. God loves us and wills that everyone be saved, and He accomplishes this in and for us by giving us faith. Predestination for the elect doesn't mean the predestination of the reprobate--it simply means that God chose us in Christ, a choice made in love for a world filled with sick and helpless sinners. Predestination is still predestination, but it doesn't mean anyone is outside of God's love and compassion and grace, the Gospel is efficacious for all.

The only thing standing between us and God's grace is us. But the Gospel is bigger than us, the grace of God is stronger than our sin, and even the most hateful, stubborn, and most "reprobate" can be saved because God's word is living, active, and accomplishes what He sets it forth to accomplish.

The only people "in hell" will be those who actively and deliberately want to be "there".

-CryptoLutheran

That rejects original sin, as conceived by the Reformed. In the Reformed view original sin is serious enough that if God allows it, we will reject him. You are proposing the same kind of grace as Arminians, a grace that we can reject. There are differences in the way Arminians and Lutherans describe it, but from a Reformed perspective they look the same.

I actually don’t accept the Calvinist version of original sin. But that leads you down the second path I described. I’m not sure you can get out of that without abandoning full foreknowledge, omnipotence, or both. Or simply reusing to talk about all the implications.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I recently read an article by cross way that listed “false accusations” against reformed thology(Calvinists) and they had a passage form the synod of Dort that said Gods wrath is upon those who falsely accuse against the theology.I don’t identify as a Calvinist because the doctrine scares me,and this recent week I’ve had tremendous anxiety all because of an article I read by a Calvinist.I said in a previous post that “I hate reformed theology” but now I’m scared Gods wrath will be upon me for not being a Calvinist.

I have a few questions for any Calvinists out there:

1.)Since I have OCD,and struggle to feel love for God,have unwanted doubts,and fear I’m not one of his elect,does that mean I’m not one of his elect?
2.) Does following Arminian theology make me a heretic and an apostate?
3.)Do I have to be a Calvinist to be saved?
4.) are Martin Luthers teachings correct,because I know they lead the e reformation.
5.)This is a big one,I constantly doubt if I’m an elect and fear God doesn’t love me,Does God love me?

The real teachings develop love in us, so there's no room for fear.

Calvinist teachings don't scare me, but the spiritual atmosphere common in Calvinist friendly spaces that creates distance between believers and God is indeed scary to me.

Paul was convinced that nothing could separate us from the love of God. However ... this is a new invention ... and I don't like it.

 

[chad kincham]

I recently read an article by cross way that listed “false accusations” against reformed thology(Calvinists) and they had a passage form the synod of Dort that said Gods wrath is upon those who falsely accuse against the theology.I don’t identify as a Calvinist because the doctrine scares me,and this recent week I’ve had tremendous anxiety all because of an article I read by a Calvinist.I said in a previous post that “I hate reformed theology” but now I’m scared Gods wrath will be upon me for not being a Calvinist.

I have a few questions for any Calvinists out there:

1.)Since I have OCD,and struggle to feel love for God,have unwanted doubts,and fear I’m not one of his elect,does that mean I’m not one of his elect?
2.) Does following Arminian theology make me a heretic and an apostate?
3.)Do I have to be a Calvinist to be saved?
4.) are Martin Luthers teachings correct,because I know they lead the e reformation.
5.)This is a big one,I constantly doubt if I’m an elect and fear God doesn’t love me,Does God love me?

The claim that you are worried about is as bogus as all reformed theology is.

Calvinism is a vile insult of Gods character and nature, and makes God the only real sinner in the universe.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That rejects original sin, as conceived by the Reformed. In the Reformed view original sin is serious enough that if God allows it, we will reject him. You are proposing the same kind of grace as Arminians, a grace that we can reject. There are differences in the way Arminians and Lutherans describe it, but from a Reformed perspective they look the same.

I actually don’t accept the Calvinist version of original sin. But that leads you down the second path I described. I’m not sure you can get out of that without abandoning full foreknowledge, omnipotence, or both. Or simply reusing to talk about all the implications.

I believe double predestination is classified as hyper-calvinism and is officially not allowed to be taught or spoken of on the forums because its considered heretical.

The majority of those in the reformed faith do not believe in double predestination.

 

[klutedavid]

I recently read an article by cross way that listed “false accusations” against reformed thology(Calvinists) and they had a passage form the synod of Dort that said Gods wrath is upon those who falsely accuse against the theology.I don’t identify as a Calvinist because the doctrine scares me,and this recent week I’ve had tremendous anxiety all because of an article I read by a Calvinist.I said in a previous post that “I hate reformed theology” but now I’m scared Gods wrath will be upon me for not being a Calvinist.

I have a few questions for any Calvinists out there:

1.)Since I have OCD,and struggle to feel love for God,have unwanted doubts,and fear I’m not one of his elect,does that mean I’m not one of his elect?
2.) Does following Arminian theology make me a heretic and an apostate?
3.)Do I have to be a Calvinist to be saved?
4.) are Martin Luthers teachings correct,because I know they lead the e reformation.
5.)This is a big one,I constantly doubt if I’m an elect and fear God doesn’t love me,Does God love me?

Here is a verse that helps to cut through all the added theology, that a thousand years of Christianity has inflicted us with.

Matthew 11:30
For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.

Here is another verse that specifies how salvation is attained.

Romans 10:9-10
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I could never accept the theory of predestination.
It is a doctrine that completely ignored the charge Lucifer made against God in heaven in the first place.
If God is predetermining who will be saved, he is manipulating the outcome. This proves Satan's argument.
It's a doctrine that ignores the entire theme of the Bible period and for that reason alone is highly suspect to me!

 

[klutedavid]

I recently read an article by cross way that listed “false accusations” against reformed thology(Calvinists) and they had a passage form the synod of Dort that said Gods wrath is upon those who falsely accuse against the theology.I don’t identify as a Calvinist because the doctrine scares me,and this recent week I’ve had tremendous anxiety all because of an article I read by a Calvinist.I said in a previous post that “I hate reformed theology” but now I’m scared Gods wrath will be upon me for not being a Calvinist.

I have a few questions for any Calvinists out there:

1.)Since I have OCD,and struggle to feel love for God,have unwanted doubts,and fear I’m not one of his elect,does that mean I’m not one of his elect?
2.) Does following Arminian theology make me a heretic and an apostate?
3.)Do I have to be a Calvinist to be saved?
4.) are Martin Luthers teachings correct,because I know they lead the e reformation.
5.)This is a big one,I constantly doubt if I’m an elect and fear God doesn’t love me,Does God love me?

Another issue with Calvinism.

If God alone elects from all eternity and we cannot alter that outcome. There is nothing, you or anyone else can do, to change God's sovereign choice. Before Jesus was born, you were either elect or damned.

There is really nothing to think about at all.

You can study Calvinism or go down to the pub for a beer. God has already elected everyone He chose from long ago anyway. Ultimately, the way you live your Christian life, in the end, cannot alter God's choice. Nothing to be worried about, because there is nothing you can do to change anything.

In Calvinism, you cannot become a heretic, God alone decides all things before they take place.
Heretics and blasphemers were all predestined to be who they are.

Some folk take comfort, in the fact, that God determines the outcome. Not realizing of course, that these same folk may not be predestined to salvation.

Calvinism is much ado about nothing, it is entirely out of our hands.

That is the issue with Calvinism. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[chad kincham]

I believe double predestination is classified as hyper-calvinism and is officially not allowed to be taught or spoken of on the forums because its considered heretical.

The majority of those in the reformed faith do not believe in double predestination.

Same difference - if only the elect are predestined to salvation, then by default everyone else is tacitly predestined to hell.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Same difference - if only the elect are predestined to salvation, then by default everyone else is tacitly predestined to hell.

One could also be more polite and say that all of the others have not been predestined to salvation. The outcome is still the same, however. A tiny minority of humanity (as in the case with Noah and his family versus all of the rest of humanity) are predestined for salvation and remainder are left to face the wages of their sin.