What's Wrong With Reformed Theology/Soteriology?

[tdidymas]

This is a continued discussion about objections to Reformed Theology, and specifically in the area of Soteriology. The original thread is here: Why are so many against reformed Theology…

Here is one of my answers to an objection that it is expected that a loving God would love everyone the same:

If God loves the wicked with the same love as He loves those He saves, then why are the wicked cast into hell, whereas you are saved? Does God love those on whom His wrath abides, with the exact same love with which He loves you enough to save you? There is something unbiblical in your conversation, since God saves some and condemns others. If God saves you because you made right choices, then the implication is that you deserve salvation, in contrast with those who don't because they made wrong choices. Do you believe that grace is unmerited or not? Do you believe in Original Sin, or not?

Paul makes a distinction between those who receive spiritual wisdom from God and those who don't, in 1 Cor. 2. He says to them in 4:7 (where he is still talking about the gospel he preaches) "For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" If we consider that receiving the gift of God (i.e. the gift of spiritual wisdom) is not something deserved, then we can say that grace is unmerited, or undeserved. If I say "I received it by my own free will choice" then I would be boasting of myself, that I made a righteous choice in contrast with most others who don't.

So, if you were born again because of some decision you made -- that is, a free-will decision in which God did not actively participate in pushing or pulling you in that direction by virtue of His granting you spiritual wisdom to believe the gospel you heard, but He left you alone to make your own decision -- then you started out better than the guy next to you who made the wrong decision to not believe. You made the right choice, he made the wrong choice - right/wrong. You made the righteous choice to believe, therefore you were more righteous than the other guy, by virtue of your natural ability. If indeed you subscribe to this idea, then it is contrary to Paul's teaching about how we started out just as unrighteous as the other guy, in Rom. 3:10-18, and unable to make a righteous choice (Rom. 8:7).

So when Paul talks about receiving wisdom to believe the gospel, that wisdom was received by us according to unmerited favor. In other words, God chose to grant us that wisdom (as opposed to choosing not to for the other guy) solely on His own purposes, and not by anything naturally in us. God was the cause of us being born again, not us. We did indeed choose to believe (although this was a spiritual event, and not a natural process), but we chose this after God granted us the wisdom to believe the gospel and were born again ("he who is spiritual..." 1 Cor. 2:15).

So, according to Reformed Theology, faith in the gospel is post-regeneration (Titus 3:5). It is the effect, or result, of spiritual rebirth. This is in alignment with Paul's distinction between the "natural man" and "he who is spiritual" in 1 Cor. 2. And this idea taught by Paul is essentially unconditional election. This is simply acknowledging what we believe Paul teaches concerning the cause and effect of God's working in our lives.
TD

 

[roman2819]

We are all sinful. The difference between those who are saved and those who aren't, is a personal choice.
The Bible didn't teach us any complicated stuff that God made the choice for those He choose to redeem --- and Jesus didn't teach anything to this effect at all.

Unless, of course, people choose to interpret verses out of context. Without context, even a universalist can quote John 3:16 to claim that believing in Jesus' existence, without having to repent, is sufficient dor redemption.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And this idea taught by Paul is essentially unconditional election. This is simply acknowledging what we believe Paul teaches concerning the cause and effect of God's working in our lives.

This looks like bias. The problem with all/any 'theology' is what man has added, or made up.

 

[tdidymas]

This looks like bias. The problem with all/any 'theology' is what man has added, or made up.

You make up words all the time to describe what you think you understand. You have a reading bias in that same sense, that you read into the text what you think you understand, or what you reason in your mind about it. It's the nature of language, conversation, reading, speaking, and translating.

So then, who told you that theology was evil, biased, or whatever else you think is bad? If Jesus asked the Pharisees for their interpretation of scripture, then why do you think that "what man has added" (your words) is bad? Just using different words to describe a Biblical idea is not evil. What is evil is twisting the words of scripture to end up with ideas and conclusions that are false.

It's the whole point of these discussions, to use common language to convey the same ideas, concepts, truth, and teachings that is conveyed in the scripture. And to dispel the common mistakes that people make when they espouse ideas that are false but commonly believed in the culture.

So I'm just wondering if you are starting out hostile to theology because someone you respected slandered theologians? Is this the reason why you object to the term? Yet I say you have a theology in your own mind, whether you acknowledge it or not. You hold an image in your mind about what God is like, and this is your theology. Theology simply means "the study of God." So your statement that any and all theology is made up is not consistent with what actually is in yourself.
TD

 

[rnmomof7]

We are all sinful. The difference between those who are saved and those who aren't, is a personal choice.
The Bible didn't teach us any complicated stuff that God made the choice for rhoae He choose -- and Jesus didn't teach anything to this effect at all.

Unless, of course, people choose to interpret verses out of context. Without context, even a universalist can claim verses that everyone is saved.

So those that are smarter, more clever and holier are the ones that are saved?

 

[tdidymas]

We are all sinful. The difference between those who are saved and those who aren't, is a personal choice.
The Bible didn't teach us any complicated stuff that God made the choice for rhoae He choose -- and Jesus didn't teach anything to this effect at all.

Unless, of course, people choose to interpret verses out of context. Without context, even a universalist can claim verses that everyone is saved.

I couldn't understand everything you wrote here because of a garbled word, but I get the gist of it. The whole point in these discussions is to hash out what scripture actually says, and what the apostles meant by what they said. To discover the truth about that might blow our minds, so to speak, or even confuse us for awhile, until the understanding comes. Even Peter wrote that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand.

You are right in saying that the difference between those who are saved and those who aren't, is a personal choice. And it's not a single choice, but a whole set of choices, since Jesus said "by their fruit you shall know them." This is a description of the difference, which is something after the fact of justification, which is the starting point of our Christian walk.

What I see the Bible saying is that choice is the result of being born again, not the cause. People are generally confused about what causes us to be born again, because of human reasoning. We think that because we see choices we make result in consequences, both good and bad, we naturally extrapolate that to the spiritual realm where we think that our natural choices result in spiritual consequences. And this is where we naturally reason that if I choose to get born again, that we then get born again after we made the choice. But this is contrary to what the apostle Paul taught, and all I'm doing here is trying to convey to people what he taught, which is what Reformed Theology is about.
TD

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Theology simply means "the study of God."

So, you admit this ? (at least this much, so far)

 

[tdidymas]

So, you admit this ? (at least this much, so far)

Admit?? It's by definition! What are you driving at?
TD

 

[Not David]

In a certain way Reform Theology shows the deficiency of the Post Schism West who can't understand God's love and grace.

 

[redleghunter]

In a certain way Reform Theology shows the deficiency of the Post Schism West who can't understand God's love and grace.

Actually the doctrines of Grace draw out the Love, Grace, Mercy and Justice of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures.

It was Pelagius and his disciples throughout history who have littered the Church East and West with error.

 

[tdidymas]

In a certain way Reform Theology shows the deficiency of the Post Schism West who can't understand God's love and grace.

Can you be more specific? Your communication is not clear. How does the Post Schism West not understand God's love and grace?
TD

 

[com7fy8]

we started out just as unrighteous as the other guy

Paul also says "we all" "were by nature children of wrath, just as the others" > in Ephesians 2:3.

Also, we have Romans 9:21 >

"Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:21)

If this means we all were made "from the same lump", then we all started as equals, I would say. And if we are equal, I would think we would not make exact opposite choices, out of our own equal nature.

So, I think it is wise not to boast that I got myself to ever make a good choice.

 

[bling]

This is a continued discussion about objections to Reformed Theology, and specifically in the area of Soteriology. The original thread is here: Why are so many against reformed Theology…

Here is one of my answers to an objection that it is expected that a loving God would love everyone the same:

If God loves the wicked with the same love as He loves those He saves, then why are the wicked cast into hell, whereas you are saved? Does God love those on whom His wrath abides, with the exact same love with which He loves you enough to save you? There is something unbiblical in your conversation, since God saves some and condemns others. If God saves you because you made right choices, then the implication is that you deserve salvation, in contrast with those who don't because they made wrong choices. Do you believe that grace is unmerited or not? Do you believe in Original Sin, or not?

Paul makes a distinction between those who receive spiritual wisdom from God and those who don't, in 1 Cor. 2. He says to them in 4:7 (where he is still talking about the gospel he preaches) "For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" If we consider that receiving the gift of God (i.e. the gift of spiritual wisdom) is not something deserved, then we can say that grace is unmerited, or undeserved. If I say "I received it by my own free will choice" then I would be boasting of myself, that I made a righteous choice in contrast with most others who don't.

So, if you were born again because of some decision you made -- that is, a free-will decision in which God did not actively participate in pushing or pulling you in that direction by virtue of His granting you spiritual wisdom to believe the gospel you heard, but He left you alone to make your own decision -- then you started out better than the guy next to you who made the wrong decision to not believe. You made the right choice, he made the wrong choice - right/wrong. You made the righteous choice to believe, therefore you were more righteous than the other guy, by virtue of your natural ability. If indeed you subscribe to this idea, then it is contrary to Paul's teaching about how we started out just as unrighteous as the other guy, in Rom. 3:10-18, and unable to make a righteous choice (Rom. 8:7).

So when Paul talks about receiving wisdom to believe the gospel, that wisdom was received by us according to unmerited favor. In other words, God chose to grant us that wisdom (as opposed to choosing not to for the other guy) solely on His own purposes, and not by anything naturally in us. God was the cause of us being born again, not us. We did indeed choose to believe (although this was a spiritual event, and not a natural process), but we chose this after God granted us the wisdom to believe the gospel and were born again ("he who is spiritual..." 1 Cor. 2:15).

So, according to Reformed Theology, faith in the gospel is post-regeneration (Titus 3:5). It is the effect, or result, of spiritual rebirth. This is in alignment with Paul's distinction between the "natural man" and "he who is spiritual" in 1 Cor. 2. And this idea taught by Paul is essentially unconditional election. This is simply acknowledging what we believe Paul teaches concerning the cause and effect of God's working in our lives.
TD

You are start way past the time for the needed autonomous free will choice and have it become a righteous, noble, honorable, worthy and deserving of something choice. The decision is not to follow or not follow God, since that comes later after God showers you with unbelievable huge wonderful gifts, making the “choice” to follow without likely alternatives, so automatic.



Salvation is totally by grace with humans doing nothing: noble, honorable, deserving, worthy to obtain salvation, righteous but that does not mean the person “dead” in sin (by Christ’s definition of “dead’ in His uses to describe the prodigal son Luke 15) cannot or did not “do” something. In the likeness of the prodigal son who did nothing “righteous, worthy, honorable or noble”, the sinner while in a dead state is brought to his senses by his own bad choices and makes an autonomous free will choice to either: hang in there, be a good soldier of satan, pay the piper and take the punishment he fully deserves or wimp out, give up and surrender to his enemy while God is still his enemy, with just the willingness for selfish reasons (not righteous reasons) to humbly accept pure undeserved charity, but he certainly is not changing sides at this time. He should feel he deserves to be tortured to death for his war crimes, By the sinner just willing to humbly accept pure charity, God can thus shower the sinner with unbelievable huge gifts, including eternal life, so it is all God doing it. Could the prodigal son boast of anything great he did? How can the beggar who is correctly desiring pure sacrificial charity “boast” about being given charity?

If the autonomous free will choice all mature adults get to make is not there, then there is no reason for our time on this messed up world. Given the free will objective to Love like God Loves, explains everything God did, is doing, allowed and is allowing to happen including: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, Adam and Eve sinning, tragedies of all kinds, hell, death and our being able to sin.

God is wanting all humans to become like He is, in that they too would have Godly type Love. The objective is driving everything.

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time?

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like create another Christ since Christ has always existed, the big impossibility for us is; create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

Let me just give you an example of How God provides the easiest and best opportunity for willing individuals to fulfill their objective.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

I’ll address your specific questions:



“If God loves the wicked with the same love as He loves those He saves, then why are the wicked cast into hell, whereas you are saved?”

It is not so much how “wicked” they have been, but if they refuse God’s charity to the point God knows they would never accept His charity. It does not mean God quit loving them, but since He cannot help them further, they can become a help to those who have not yet accepted God’s charity but still can. Hell, and knowing people can go to hell helps some willing individuals decide sooner to accept God’s charity and not tarry.

“ Does God love those on whom His wrath abides, with the exact same love with which He loves you enough to save you?”

God cannot change who He is and He is Love, so yes. The wrath on the sinner can help those chose to accept God’s help.

“Do you believe that grace is unmerited or not?”

Yes, no one deserves it.

“Do you believe in Original Sin, or not?”

Adam and Eve were the first human sinners, but you might want to explain further what you are wanting?

 

[bling]

So those that are smarter, more clever and holier are the ones that are saved?

Read my post 13.

 

[bling]

Paul also says "we all" "were by nature children of wrath, just as the others" > in Ephesians 2:3.

Also, we have Romans 9:21 >

"Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" (Romans 9:21)

If this means we all were made "from the same lump", then we all started as equals, I would say. And if we are equal, I would think we would not make exact opposite choices, out of our own equal nature.

So, I think it is wise not to boast that I got myself to ever make a good choice.

Read my post 13.

 

[Not David]

Can you be more specific? Your communication is not clear. How does the Post Schism West not understand God's love and grace?
TD

They define hell more of a place rather than an experience. So hell is caused by the person refusing to accept God so when the person is present in God's glory, that glory makes the person live hell.

It seems people prefer to say God does not love everyone because they believe hell to be a place of torture who will be incompatible with their understanding of love.

 

[Not David]

Actually the doctrines of Grace draw out the Love, Grace, Mercy and Justice of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures.

It was Pelagius and his disciples throughout history who have littered the Church East and West with error.

Except all of them believe in Original Sin (even if in different ways) when Pelagius didn't.

 

[tdidymas]

You are start way past the time for the needed autonomous free will choice and have it become a righteous, noble, honorable, worthy and deserving of something choice. The decision is not to follow or not follow God, since that comes later after God showers you with unbelievable huge wonderful gifts, making the “choice” to follow without likely alternatives, so automatic.



Salvation is totally by grace with humans doing nothing: noble, honorable, deserving, worthy to obtain salvation, righteous but that does not mean the person “dead” in sin (by Christ’s definition of “dead’ in His uses to describe the prodigal son Luke 15) cannot or did not “do” something. In the likeness of the prodigal son who did nothing “righteous, worthy, honorable or noble”, the sinner while in a dead state is brought to his senses by his own bad choices and makes an autonomous free will choice to either: hang in there, be a good soldier of satan, pay the piper and take the punishment he fully deserves or wimp out, give up and surrender to his enemy while God is still his enemy, with just the willingness for selfish reasons (not righteous reasons) to humbly accept pure undeserved charity, but he certainly is not changing sides at this time. He should feel he deserves to be tortured to death for his war crimes, By the sinner just willing to humbly accept pure charity, God can thus shower the sinner with unbelievable huge gifts, including eternal life, so it is all God doing it. Could the prodigal son boast of anything great he did? How can the beggar who is correctly desiring pure sacrificial charity “boast” about being given charity?

If the autonomous free will choice all mature adults get to make is not there, then there is no reason for our time on this messed up world. Given the free will objective to Love like God Loves, explains everything God did, is doing, allowed and is allowing to happen including: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, Adam and Eve sinning, tragedies of all kinds, hell, death and our being able to sin.

God is wanting all humans to become like He is, in that they too would have Godly type Love. The objective is driving everything.

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time?

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like create another Christ since Christ has always existed, the big impossibility for us is; create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

Let me just give you an example of How God provides the easiest and best opportunity for willing individuals to fulfill their objective.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

I’ll address your specific questions:



“If God loves the wicked with the same love as He loves those He saves, then why are the wicked cast into hell, whereas you are saved?”

It is not so much how “wicked” they have been, but if they refuse God’s charity to the point God knows they would never accept His charity. It does not mean God quit loving them, but since He cannot help them further, they can become a help to those who have not yet accepted God’s charity but still can. Hell, and knowing people can go to hell helps some willing individuals decide sooner to accept God’s charity and not tarry.

“ Does God love those on whom His wrath abides, with the exact same love with which He loves you enough to save you?”

God cannot change who He is and He is Love, so yes. The wrath on the sinner can help those chose to accept God’s help.

“Do you believe that grace is unmerited or not?”

Yes, no one deserves it.

“Do you believe in Original Sin, or not?”

Adam and Eve were the first human sinners, but you might want to explain further what you are wanting?

The doctrine of Original Sin is equivalent to the doctrine of Total Depravity, it's simply older in chronology by title. If grace really is unmerited, that has to mean that all of us began our lives totally depraved in the spiritual sense. In 1 Cor. 2 Paul makes a distinction between the natural and spiritual person, and the way they think and reason. He says the natural person doesn't believe or understand the gospel, since they don't have the wisdom in themselves for it. That wisdom to understand and accept and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is a gift from God. He doesn't give it to everyone, as is obvious by just a cursory survey of the NT.

I get your reasoning about the importance of having a choice to make concerning whether or not we submit to the ways of God and Christ, and especially in receiving His love for us. The problem I see is your failure to distinguish between the natural realm and the spiritual realm. If you were natural only, you would have no influence from the Spirit of God ("without God in the world"), and you would have no understanding of the gospel, since the gospel is spiritually discerned. You would be (so to speak) "fat, dumb, and happy" with your view of life.

But whoever discerns the gospel enough to obey it, have received spiritual wisdom from God, as Paul states "which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words." I contend that a person in this state has already been born again, if indeed they understand the gospel and see its value enough to obey. Those who see the kingdom of God see it because they are already in it. Those who don't see it aren't in it.

There are other places (Eph., Col, et. al.) where Paul affirms this idea, that God has done all the work, including making the choice to make us born again, of our salvation (first to last). For example: Col. 1:13 "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son" - "delivered" and "translated" was what God did to us, not a decision we made ourselves.

To seal this idea, this is how Paul defines being saved by grace: Eph. 2:5 "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)." Notice he says "when we were dead..." which means at the time we were haters of God and children of wrath, God raised us to life. This was a supernatural act of God, motivated by His own purpose and will. It means God did this without our permission. To be sure, He now has our "permission" (if you can call it that) - rather, He has our gratitude for doing what He did to us, even though He did it at the time without our permission.

We came into existence because God created us without our prior permission. Perhaps atheists don't like that idea, and perhaps they would rather pass away into oblivion (after living a happy and pleasureful life), because they weren't asked permission to exist. But in the same way, believers weren't asked prior permission to be created anew. This happened because God decided to love some of mankind greater than His love for common man, by having mercy on them, and bringing them to spiritual life by means of the Spirit's power and the preaching of the gospel. This is how I read the NT including the writings of Paul, Peter, and John.

So then, just because you have some experience that you assess as "not changing sides" until you make some kind of self-centered choice to change sides after reasoning it out, doesn't make your idea true or Biblical. All the credit for salvation belongs to God, including the decision to save individuals.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

They define hell more of a place rather than an experience. So hell is caused by the person refusing to accept God so when the person is present in God's glory, that glory makes the person live hell.

It seems people prefer to say God does not love everyone because they believe hell to be a place of torture who will be incompatible with their understanding of love.

Not sure exactly what your meaning is. Are you saying hell doesn't exist? Even if Jesus described it as a place of torment and gritting teeth? Even if Rev. 20 says "everyone not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire"?

However, I think you might not have the right idea about Reformed Theology, even though there are certain controversies within that camp. I don't believe that when God says he hates certain people, that there is no love to them from God. He also said He did not delight in the death of the wicked. Although God chooses not to save everyone (we are not universalists), it doesn't mean He doesn't love those condemned in some capacity. "God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
TD

 

[Not David]

Not sure exactly what your meaning is. Are you saying hell doesn't exist? Even if Jesus described it as a place of torment and gritting teeth? Even if Rev. 20 says "everyone not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire"?

However, I think you might not have the right idea about Reformed Theology, even though there are certain controversies within that camp. I don't believe that when God says he hates certain people, that there is no love to them from God. He also said He did not delight in the death of the wicked. Although God chooses not to save everyone (we are not universalists), it doesn't mean He doesn't love those condemned in some capacity. "God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
TD

I never said hell does not exist just that the torment is more experimental than physical (because we don't know how the physical is going to be on the afterlife).

It really depends on the idea of salvation. If you define salvation by being free from physical death and having restored bodies, I would say everyone is saved but if it is about enjoying God's presence then I would say not.

I am glad that you believe God loves people because I was told that God hates certain people and that was the reason He created them.