Reformed Theology

[LovesOurLord]

Hi all,

I'm currently studying this topic and I have an issue with what I'm seeing. Firstly, people like RC Sproul, such as in his book Chosen by God, explain what Reformed doctrine is but he doesn't really give many scriptural cites to justify the doctrines specifically of election and total depravity. I also note that writings I read that cite verses, there aren't that many verses being cited and they also aren't addressing the other verses that indicate an Arminian interpretation.

Generally speaking, it seems that there are a lot of Reformed vs Arminian apologetics that do not address the scriptures the opposite side cites as evidence for its own viewpoint, Sproul's above book being a case in point.

And frankly, I am less than impressed with the Calvinist doctrines of predestination vs double predestination. In "mainstream" Calvinism, I guess you can call it, the idea is that there is a predestination to election but not to damnation, whereas what Sproul calls "hyper Calvinism" teaches that there are both predestinations to election and damnation both. Sproul rejects double predestination because it teaches that God actively imparts evil on people. It seems to me this is a case of hair-splitting. If God remains passive, as Sproul teaches, and does not attempt to intervene in saving the non-elect, then it's essentially a case of double predestination anyway because the end result is the same regardless if God is an active participant in the damnation of those people or merely a passive observer allowing them to continue their path to damnation without interference which by default means damnation without God's grace.

Any insights by anyone? Any resources to review where Reformed and Arminian address each other's doctrines on a verse-by-verse basis? I have a new book called, Calvinism vs Arminianism: The Bible Answers by Edward D Andrews. It has a pretty good explainer of the Arminian POV but it lacks a rebut of verses Calvinists cite.

In the end, IMO, the Arminian position is too strong, especially surveying God's relations with the Hebrews in the Old Testament. They were elected as God's people, but they could lose that election, and in fact did lose that election, as punishments for voluntarily leaving the faith.

 

[Hazelelponi]

------- deleted ------

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Firstly, people like RC Sproul, such as in his book Chosen by God, explain what Reformed doctrine is but he doesn't really give many scriptural cites to justify the doctrines specifically of election and total depravity.

I agree. Sproul relies heavily on reasoning, and he doesn't utilize scripture nearly as much as he could.

...and they also aren't addressing the other verses that indicate an Arminian interpretation.

That's a tricky one, because Calvinists often find themselves in the position of being expected to refute a position which they do not disagree with. The Arminian argument goes to show that a man can willfully turn toward or from God. Scripture is full of examples, because that's what people do in real life. The Arminian shows scripture after scripture of people choosing God or rejecting him of their own will, and then the Arminian stands back triumphantly and dares the Calvinist to refute it. It was never the position of the Calvinist that people do not make up their own minds. Therefore, for a Calvinist to rebut the Arminian argument is to rebut himself. What the Calvinist holds is that God has a higher design that works at a different level, that he has the ability to bring about his desired outcome either through or in spite of the designs of people. Therefore, it's not a question of whether a Calvinist can refute the Arminian position, but whether the Arminian can refute the Calvinistic one. I won't fall into the trap of putting the onus on the Arminian, because it is the Calvinist who has the positive point to make, but it's not really the Arminian point that is being challenged. His position is already obvious. However, if he presents his views and finds scripture to show it, then he has proved nothing against the Calvinist. We already know that people willfully turn to or from God. For the Arminian position to hold its own against Calvinism, it must prove from scripture that God's will can ultimately be thwarted, and that the course of human history is not subject to God's control. In other words, the Arminian must show that when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery it was not part of Gods plan to redeem the entire family later on. Merely showing that they acted on their own free will may demonstrate Arminianism, but it does not contradict Calvinism.

If God remains passive, as Sproul teaches, and does not attempt to intervene in saving the non-elect, then it's essentially a case of double predestination anyway because the end result is the same regardless if God is an active participant in the damnation of those people or merely a passive observer allowing them to continue their path to damnation without interference which by default means damnation without God's grace.

I do agree with you. The distinction is a silly way for people to reconcile their belief in predestination with their desire to see God as only being a cause for good (see Isaiah 45:7). If a man driving a car takes his hands off of the wheel, then it will crash. He is just as much responsible for the car's safe course as he is for its collision. Causing the one is no more difficult than preventing the other. However, there is a distinction between letting the car go its own way off the road, versus deliberately steering it off of the road. The end result is the same, but the evil of the collision can either be by design or by the lack of design. The only distinction to be made is whether a human failure is a positive design or the deliberate withholding of positive design by God. That tells us if we should look for greater meaning or purpose in the self-inflicted tragedies of fallen people. I would argue that we shouldn't, in most cases. A meaningless waste of humanity is exactly what it appears to be, more often than not, in my opinion.

They were elected as God's people, but they could lose that election, and in fact did lose that election, as punishments for voluntarily leaving the faith.

I can only suggest reading the entire chapter of Romans 9. The election was never lost. It can't be. "6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed."

 

[Albion]

Sproul rejects double predestination because it teaches that God actively imparts evil on people. It seems to me this is a case of hair-splitting. If God remains passive, as Sproul teaches, and does not attempt to intervene in saving the non-elect, then it's essentially a case of double predestination anyway because the end result is the same regardless if God is an active participant in the damnation of those people or merely a passive observer allowing them to continue their path to damnation without interference which by default means damnation without God's grace.

That would not be double predestination, however, because in that case the person simply pays the price for his own sins, having not been destined in advance to salvation.

 

[LovesOurLord]

Another issue I'm having: Predestination.

Everything is ordained by God but we have free will? The way I hear most people explain it, it's as if God planned every millisecond of our lives in advance and we're just puppets along for the ride.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Another issue I'm having: Predestination.

Everything is ordained by God but we have free will? The way I hear most people explain it, it's as if God planned every millisecond of our lives in advance and we're just puppets along for the ride.

This is a rather difficult question to answer and has generated much debate. How does our will fit in with the sovereignty of God? Calvinism seems to suggest that we are like puppets on strings and God is the puppeteer. "Freewill Theism" suggest the complete opposite where God has absolutely no control over our choices or action. I found that the most Biblical answer is "compatiblistic freewill". Compatabilistic Freewill is a form of soft determinism that fits in the middle. In this theory, we are like mice in a maze where there is only one way out. We are free take any path we want and will be responsible for every decision we make. However, ultimately there is only one way out, God's will. Our choices in the maze will either bring us closer to God's will or it will bring us further away. Regardless, they are our choices. I believe that a truly powerful and sovereign God would have His will done regardless of our decisions.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Plenty of scripture will be found here.
M-Bob

 

[Albion]

Another issue I'm having: Predestination.

Everything is ordained by God but we have free will? The way I hear most people explain it, it's as if God planned every millisecond of our lives in advance and we're just puppets along for the ride.

They are mistaken. The word itself may suggest that, but in Christian theology it means that choosing Christ (and so being saved) is not a matter of free will like choosing the color of your next car. It does not refer to everything else in life.

And this makes sense, if you think about the choices we make. There is a logical reason why we choose our lovers, our jobs, our residences, our dinners, and everything else EXCEPT for choosing God. We do not have enough knowledge, ability, etc. to choose God. The subject of that choice is simply too much above our knowledge and experience level for there to be a reasoned-out process of selection. So God (according to the theory) has to choose us.

 

[mark kennedy]

The concept of double predestination baffles me, my understanding of predestination must be totally different. I'm quick to emphasis what God predestined us for, really don't want to defend some concept that God had a list of names of all the people who would be saved before creating life on earth. As far as RC Sproul, I enjoyed his radio program and when it comes to philosophical and historical discussions he is hard to beat. I have never felt predestination created some negation of free will, but then again when a word like that is introduced I go back to the passages it appears in. My whole problem with Arminian theology is the role of works in salvation, they are very insistent about it, I think it's an affront to grace.

Election is a no brainer for me, God chooses you in the beloved by an exercise of his sovereign will. What God knew and when get's into speculation, we will not fully understand that part of it until the resurrection. I explored Wesleyan theology for years, still have a fondness for it. That's really the only Arminian system I'm familiar with, I've known few Methodists who were chatty about theology and find there theological discussions as formal doctrine uninteresting.

 

[hedrick]

Hi all,

I'm currently studying this topic and I have an issue with what I'm seeing. Firstly, people like RC Sproul, such as in his book Chosen by God, explain what Reformed doctrine is but he doesn't really give many scriptural cites to justify the doctrines specifically of election and total depravity. I also note that writings I read that cite verses, there aren't that many verses being cited and they also aren't addressing the other verses that indicate an Arminian interpretation.

That may be a problem with his book. There are lots of citations throughout the Bible. One strength of Reformed theology is that it's quite complete. Many Reformed writers, starting with Calvin, have published commentaries on books throughout the Bible, addressing all the passages you're thinking about. I don't have an easy resource. I normally refer to Calvin's commentaries, as well to his exposition in the Institutes. Both are available at ccel.org.

Here are some passages that Arminians and Calvinists interpret differently:
Calvinism & Arminianism: Controversial Passages | Xenos Christian Fellowship

And frankly, I am less than impressed with the Calvinist doctrines of predestination vs double predestination. In "mainstream" Calvinism, I guess you can call it, the idea is that there is a predestination to election but not to damnation, whereas what Sproul calls "hyper Calvinism" teaches that there are both predestinations to election and damnation both. Sproul rejects double predestination because it teaches that God actively imparts evil on people. It seems to me this is a case of hair-splitting. If God remains passive, as Sproul teaches, and does not attempt to intervene in saving the non-elect, then it's essentially a case of double predestination anyway because the end result is the same regardless if God is an active participant in the damnation of those people or merely a passive observer allowing them to continue their path to damnation without interference which by default means damnation without God's grace.

I hope you've misunderstood Sproul. Traditional Reformed theology teaches double predestination. It does not say that God makes anyone evil.

The distinction is subtle. The core claim of traditional Reformed theology is that God is in control of history. People become followers of God in two ways, (1) things happen around them. People show them what it's like to be a Christian. They read and hear about Jesus. (2) God works in their hearts. Both are part of God's plan. But God works more directly when he speaks to us in our hearts, and indirectly because he's responsible for everything that happens.

God works only in the first way with those who reject him. He doesn't inspire them to do evil. He simply leaves them to influences that are incapable of making them Christians. But this is still double predestination, because God's plan still includes who is going to be saved and who is going to be damned.

In the end, IMO, the Arminian position is too strong, especially surveying God's relations with the Hebrews in the Old Testament. They were elected as God's people, but they could lose that election, and in fact did lose that election, as punishments for voluntarily leaving the faith.

There are difficulties with Arminianism. If God can predict what is going to happen, and if he is in control, then it's very hard to see how he is not responsible for who accepts him and who doesn't. God could arrange it so any person is a Christian. If he knows how everyone is going to act, he knows what he could do to get anyone to convert. But he only does it for some. He leaves others to be damned. That's what predestination is. It's not God turning people evil. It's God leaving some people on their own to reject him.

I think the only way to avoid double predestination is open theism, the idea that we are not entirely predictable. Even God doesn't know exactly how everyone is going to decide. And in fact some Arminians do accept open theism. But most do not. I don't see how that could work.

Both open theism is considered heretical by many Christians (including CF policy).

 

[hedrick]

I think most Christians instinctively think that God is responsible for the big picture: calling Israel, sending Assyria and Babylon to punish them, bringing Israel back to the promised land, etc, but that he does not determine who responds to his call.

But if you start looking at this in detail, I think it implies open theism. Most Christians, however, reject open theism. That leaves an implicit contradiction. Reformed theology at least is consistent.

Note that open theism many only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology section of CF.

 

[LovesOurLord]

I hope you've misunderstood Sproul. Traditional Reformed theology teaches double predestination. It does not say that God makes anyone evil.

The distinction is subtle. The core claim of traditional Reformed theology is that God is in control of history. People become followers of God in two ways, (1) things happen around them. People show them what it's like to be a Christian. They read and hear about Jesus. (2) God works in their hearts. Both are part of God's plan. But God works more directly when he speaks to us in our hearts, and indirectly because he's responsible for everything that happens.

God works only in the first way with those who reject him. He doesn't inspire them to do evil. He simply leaves them to influences that are incapable of making them Christians. But this is still double predestination, because God's plan still includes who is going to be saved and who is going to be damned.

OK, I got a book in the mail by Sproul called "Chosen by God." There is a section on predestination, answering the question of if it's double. Beginning page 142 he describes two views of double predestination. The standard or Orthodox Reformed version, which he adheres to, states that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives who he has decided are elect, while the rest are left to themselves and their own choices. What he calls "Hyper-Calvinism" is what he describes as an error where God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of who he has elected for damnation as well, as if he were an agent working evil in people which of course is coercing sin.

The Westminster Confession clearly teaches double predestination.

This is basically what you just said but it seems to me this is a tightrope walk. God selects people for damnation yet doesn't put them in position to be damned? So I know CPR. If I came across someone that wasn't breathing and withheld CPR on purpose, knowing doing so would take away any chance of their being saved, would that not make me morally culpable in their death?

 

[hedrick]

This is basically what you just said but it seems to me this is a tightrope walk. God selects people for damnation yet doesn't put them in position to be damned? So I know CPR. If I came across someone that wasn't breathing and withheld CPR on purpose, knowing doing so would take away any chance of their being saved, would that not make me morally culpable in their death?

Yes. But the Reformed position is that God doesn't owe anyone salvation. So there's no moral culpability. The usual Calvinist explanation for why he doesn't owe anyone salvation is that everyone is evil. You may well object to that, but I don't think Calvinism changes that much if the reason he doesn't owe anyone salvation changes. I think a Calvinist could assume that God has a good reason; we just don't know it.

Even in human affairs there's a distinction between killing someone and not intervening. As far as I know, you are not legally obligated to use CPR, unless perhaps you're a paramedic on duty. There is a legal difference between killing someone and not intervening to save their lives.

In my opinion Arminianism doesn't actually avoid this problem. As long as God is able to see the future in detail, and is omnipotent, he knows who will and won't be saved and he doesn't intervene to save everyone. Maybe he has good reason. But whatever good reason he has could apply just as well in Calvinism.

Normally Calvinism doesn't talk about how God decides who to save, and most think it's not possible for us to know. But there's one exception. Calvin makes one statement in the Institutes that looks like he's saying that God specifically wants certain people to be damned (though he still doesn't claim to know how he chooses). I'm not sure he meant it, but it certainly looks that way. (He still doesn't say that God actively works to damn them, of course.) But I think as long as we leave God's motivations a mystery, in the end there's not much moral difference between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Even open theism isn't *that* much different. God can't foresee the details from the beginning of the universe. But it's hard to avoid the idea that he can tell pretty clearly which direction a person's life is going, and fails to intervene with those that are going the wrong way. Whatever good reason he has not to do so can apply just as well in Calvinism. I think the only way to avoid some kind of moral responsibility is (1) to assume he isn't morally obligated to save everyone (possibly because he knows some reason why that would be a bad idea), (2) he isn't omnipotent, or (3) everyone ends up saved. But the moment you accept the idea that there might be a good reason why he doesn't save everyone, I think Calvinism becomes acceptable.

 

[msortwell]

If you have a genuine desire to understand Reformed Theology, I suggest you read Louis Berkhof's "Systematic Theology." It provides ample Scriptural evidence and generally descirbes the opposing views, showing why the Reformed position is to be preferred.

The book, with other useful references can be found here.

FREE EBOOKS : Reformed, Christian eBooks

 

[Radagast]

I'm currently studying this topic and I have an issue with what I'm seeing.

The definitive short document on "TULIP" would be the Canons of Dordt. See The Canons of Dordt

Any resources to review where Reformed and Arminian address each other's doctrines on a verse-by-verse basis?

If you want equal airtime for all sides, try this: https://www.amazon.com/Predestination-Free-Will-Sovereignty-Freedom/dp/0877845670

 

[msortwell]

It should be noted that “Reformed Theology” is a broader topic than the Calvinist / Arminian debate. Covenant Theology is also a key element in Reformed Theology - if not its synonym.

 

[msortwell]

This is basically what you just said but it seems to me this is a tightrope walk. God selects people for damnation yet doesn't put them in position to be damned? So I know CPR. If I came across someone that wasn't breathing and withheld CPR on purpose, knowing doing so would take away any chance of their being saved, would that not make me morally culpable in their death?

In the Calvinist understanding, the reprobate man is NOT an innocent victim. By way of analogy, the reprobate, modeled as a drowning man, does everything in his power to resist every effort to pull him from certain death. Were a man to jump in to save him, the reprobate would, with his dying breath fend off, or drag down with him, any would-be rescuer.

The analogy, of course falls apart, as most do, because God COULD save this reprobate. Despite the most strenuous efforts of this lost man to suppress the truth of God, with the truth of the openly offered gospel, God COULD change his heart - give him a heart that, rather than fighting off the truth, would necessarily embrace, with the saving faith gifted to him, the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But is it appropriate for mere creatures to find fault with their sovereign creator for choosing to NOT overcome the herculean effort on the part of the reprobate to suppress the truth evidenced in creation - evidence that leaves them without excuse - all the while walking in the the shared guilt of Adam and living contrary to the laws of God - and rejecting the cross of Christ if given the opportunity?

Might it be more appropriate for those for whom God did overcome our best efforts to suppress the truth in unrighteousness - for us to fall on our face in praise of His sovereign grace, and get on with the business of sharing the free offer of the gospel in His Word that He might use it to the saving of others that deserve it no more than we did?

 

[Revelation seeker]

It seems to me that YAHWEH knowing the end from the beginning gets interpreted as He foreordained people's salvation or damnation. Because God knows our decisions beforehand does not mean He made those decisions for us. It also seems that He acts to influence our decisions so we will choose salvation.
"WHOSOEVER shall CALL on the Name of YAHWEH(now YESHUA) shall be saved."

 

[Hazelelponi]

It seems to me that YAHWEH knowing the end from the beginning gets interpreted as He foreordained people's salvation or damnation. Because God knows our decisions beforehand does not mean He made those decisions for us. It also seems that He acts to influence our decisions so we will choose salvation.
"WHOSOEVER shall CALL on the Name of YAHWEH(now YESHUA) shall be saved."

It's more than just foreknowledge...

We see in the prophet Isaiah a sure mark that he had beheld the Lord in His sovereign majesty–an utter reliance on God’s sovereign, saving grace.

This is seen in the sign Isaiah gave to King Ahaz. Isaiah urged this sign on Ahaz to enliven his faith. It was a sign that was foolish in the eyes of the world, but glorious in the eyes of God: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” In the presence of Ahaz’s apostate unbelief, Isaiah laid his hand on the greatest sign of sovereign grace: the virgin who would be with child.

Isaiah spoke of childbirth through a barren womb as a sign of saving grace - Isaiah 54:1. a barren womb represents human labor that has failed, but the virgin womb speaks of a field where man has not sown at all. From that womb comes the Savior, Jesus Christ.

What’s So Great about the Sovereignty of God?

It is the same with us even now, human effort fails every time, and salvation is the Lord's - alone. We can't save ourselves, the Bible doesn't depict man as drowning in sin, It depicts man as DEAD in his sin.

We are the called out ones... 1 Peter 2:9, 1 Peter 2:10.

 

[zippy2006]

Hi all,

I'm currently studying this topic and I have an issue with what I'm seeing. Firstly, people like RC Sproul, such as in his book Chosen by God, explain what Reformed doctrine is but he doesn't really give many scriptural cites to justify the doctrines specifically of election and total depravity. I also note that writings I read that cite verses, there aren't that many verses being cited and they also aren't addressing the other verses that indicate an Arminian interpretation.

Generally speaking, it seems that there are a lot of Reformed vs Arminian apologetics that do not address the scriptures the opposite side cites as evidence for its own viewpoint, Sproul's above book being a case in point.

And frankly, I am less than impressed with the Calvinist doctrines of predestination vs double predestination. In "mainstream" Calvinism, I guess you can call it, the idea is that there is a predestination to election but not to damnation, whereas what Sproul calls "hyper Calvinism" teaches that there are both predestinations to election and damnation both. Sproul rejects double predestination because it teaches that God actively imparts evil on people. It seems to me this is a case of hair-splitting. If God remains passive, as Sproul teaches, and does not attempt to intervene in saving the non-elect, then it's essentially a case of double predestination anyway because the end result is the same regardless if God is an active participant in the damnation of those people or merely a passive observer allowing them to continue their path to damnation without interference which by default means damnation without God's grace.

Any insights by anyone? Any resources to review where Reformed and Arminian address each other's doctrines on a verse-by-verse basis? I have a new book called, Calvinism vs Arminianism: The Bible Answers by Edward D Andrews. It has a pretty good explainer of the Arminian POV but it lacks a rebut of verses Calvinists cite.

In the end, IMO, the Arminian position is too strong, especially surveying God's relations with the Hebrews in the Old Testament. They were elected as God's people, but they could lose that election, and in fact did lose that election, as punishments for voluntarily leaving the faith.

Another issue I'm having: Predestination.

Everything is ordained by God but we have free will? The way I hear most people explain it, it's as if God planned every millisecond of our lives in advance and we're just puppets along for the ride.

I agree with you. Calvinism is deeply problematic. Many Christians have come to realize this. A few years ago I made a thread called, "Quoting Calvin," to show that the problematic doctrines are part and parcel of the system.