Reformed Theology

LovesOurLord said:

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.

Click to expand...

LovesOurLord said:

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.

Click to expand...

LovesOurLord said:

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?

Click to expand...