What's Wrong With Reformed Theology/Soteriology?

[tdidymas]

We don't deny that God is doing this. We unequivocally affirm that God hardens whomever He wills. But we must protest the horrendous notion that God is doing it arbitrarily. If God wills them to be hardened (which, by the way, is simply what happens when God's grace withdraws from anyone who chooses not to believe in Him) it is only because he is responding to their own choice to embrace sinful unbelief, and is using their sinfulness in ways that will bring about a good which will ultimately reveal the glorious Wisdom of God.

Ok, I see a bone of contention with the term "arbitrary." Here is the definition of it that I use and that is taught in R.T.:
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion
It simply is following Paul in Rom. 9 saying "I will have mercy on whom I will..." It means that God making the decision on who to save (i.e. have mercy on) is not based on anything in that individual. God has His own reasons. It may be "to shame the wise," or to show that the worst case (like Paul) can be saved, or any other godly reason, like to glorify Himself.

So, if this is true, then you have the burden of proof to show that your negative and derogatory use of the term is true according to your assessment.

By choosing to have faith or to rebel against God, individuals decide which they will receive. They determine whether God will fashion them into a vessel of mercy or a vessel prepared for destruction (Romans 9:21-23).

And here is where you deny the truth of Rom. 3:10-18, namely the doctrine of Original Sin as taught by Augustine. IMO you stand with Pelagius by implying that an unregenerate person can actually do something righteous, like believe in Christ and obey the gospel. Yet according to that passage, Paul is teaching that "no one understands, or is righteous" and therefore no one believes (i.e. the unregenerate). Therefore, all are in rebellion against God, and will never choose to have faith, and this is why God has to put the faith in a person.

This also explains why Paul says that God “endured with much patience” the vessels he was preparing for destruction (Romans 9:22). Why would God have to “endure with much patience” rebellious people if he was the one making them rebellious in the first place? Why would he go on to say, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (10:21, quoting Isaiah 65:2) if he was the one molding them to be disobedient? And why would a God of love intentionally fashion people to rebel against him and bring destruction on themselves in the first place?

In point of fact, the potter endures with much patience the vessels that are being prepared for destruction because it was not his original will to fashion these people in this direction. He would love for all “disobedient and contrary people” to come to him, and so he is patient with them. But so long as they persist in their unbelief, they are clay that can only be fashioned into a vessel fit for destruction.

Same old, same old - confusion with determinism.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

God is gracious toward all of us, but not everyone accepts His grace as charity.

God obviously does not have the same grace toward all, as He does not have the same mercy on all. And He does not love everyone the same (as I have explained before).
TD

 

[truefiction1]

Ok, I see a bone of contention with the term "arbitrary." Here is the definition of it that I use and that is taught in R.T.:
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion
It simply is following Paul in Rom. 9 saying "I will have mercy on whom I will..." It means that God making the decision on who to save (i.e. have mercy on) is not based on anything in that individual. God has His own reasons. It may be "to shame the wise," or to show that the worst case (like Paul) can be saved, or any other godly reason, like to glorify Himself.

So, if this is true, then you have the burden of proof to show that your negative and derogatory use of the term is true according to your assessment.


And here is where you deny the truth of Rom. 3:10-18, namely the doctrine of Original Sin as taught by Augustine. IMO you stand with Pelagius by implying that an unregenerate person can actually do something righteous, like believe in Christ and obey the gospel. Yet according to that passage, Paul is teaching that "no one understands, or is righteous" and therefore no one believes (i.e. the unregenerate). Therefore, all are in rebellion against God, and will never choose to have faith, and this is why God has to put the faith in a person.


Same old, same old - confusion with determinism.
TD

Augustine did not define the Church's doctrine of original sin. He merely wrote about it, and some of it was highly speculative, admittedly so, and was ultimately not altogether accepted as true by the Church. So the soteriology of the Church is neither Augustinian nor Pelagian. Pelagius underemphasized the necessity of grace in healing the diseased will. Those who allowed their own thinking on original sin to be too heavily influenced by errors in the speculative statements (which were admittedly so) of Augustine have overemphasized the role of grace to such an extreme that human will cannot even desire to turn to God in order to be healed (i.e. ask for grace). But this is heresy. Augustine is not a heretic because he did not insist on his views, which later were shown to be incorrect, but gave preeminence to the judgment of the Church. But those who embrace Augustine's erroneous ideas about original sin and refuse to listen to the Church are mistaken.

 

[charsan]

Calvinism As Heresy - Glory to God for All Things

 

[truefiction1]

This puts man in his rightful place, and gives God the glory. The "choosing to believe by free will" gives glory to man.


Your assessment of it is simply not true.
TD

Do you want to know what we find most problematic about reformed theology? It is the manner in which those who embrace it understand the term "glory" as it pertains to God. It is almost as if God is thought of as a being who is concerned with the opinions of the intelligent creatures which He has created. "Gods glory", when used the way that you have used it above, amounts to nothing more than the very "vainglory" that Jesus Christ begged us to put to death within ourselves, because that vile, degenerate passion, like pride, is not an attribute of God, and anyone who allows it to exist within their hearts does not... can not... know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, and can not therefor receive the Kingdom of God. The Glory of God is revealed to us as follows:

This is the image of the "Glory" of God. It is also the image of the Love of God. It is also the image of the Wisdom of God. It is also the image of the Power of God. It is also the image of the Justice of God. It is also the image of the Holiness of God. It is also the image of the Goodness of God. It is also the image of the Truth of God.

God is stripped naked, mocked, humiliated, violated by His own creatures, degraded publicly as a criminal, falsely accused, disdained by all, betrayed and abandoned by His friends.

He did not care about any of that. He only cared about what He was giving to others, because He is Love.

When we come to possess what is in this God Who suffered all, then we will understand that the glory of God is just one aspect of what the only True God is: Love. Or to put it another way: God is glorious because God is Love. But why does God suffer over His creatures? God suffers because His creatures have free will, and have used it to stray away from Him and away from His great gift of Eternal Life, which He would give to all men. For this is what He is doing when He "stretches out His hands to them" on the Cross, beckoning all to turn to their Good Shepherd, so that He can heal them and free them from their suffering.

I can quite vehemently tell you that neither God cares what anyone thinks about Him, nor do any of God's children care what anyone thinks about them or about their God. For the saints, it is only what, or actually "WHO" they know that is of any importance whatsoever. Men having freewill and having it play a part in determining the nature of their personal relationships with a Personal God does not detract from God's glory. If anything it is another powerful expression of God's glory.

 

[truefiction1]

Like I said before, you assume too much, since R.T. doesn't teach what you claim here.
TD

Reformed theology is basically Calvinism, right? Calvinism is based on T.U.L.I.P, is it not? If so, then I doubt I've assumed too much.

 

[truefiction1]

TF,
We do not agree ,but we have both stated our positions.
Mt 18:6 says this;
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea

Spiritual death happened as the fall. Man lost all ability to understand spiritually.

ICONO'CLAST, The particular little child that Jesus called to come and stand in the midst of them while he explained to them who was greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, really does believe in Jesus Christ, as you say. His name is Ignatius. He grew up and became a bishop in Christ's Church, in Antioch. This bishop, of whom Christ said to his disciples that they must be converted and become as "this little child", "who believes in me", wrote letters in the Church that we have copies of to this day. This is what he wrote about free will in one of his letters: "If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice."

Just thought I'd let you know what Jesus' "little child who believes" in Him has to say on this matter. Because I didn't think you were aware of it.

 

[truefiction1]

I do not follow anecdotal stories outside of scripture from your kind of church, caught up in formal dead rituals, and sacramentalism. I was raised RC, and know-how dead it can be.
It sounds harsh, but the truth sometimes destroys the false rather than co-exists with it.
Nothing in the Bible identifies the child in Matthew 18 as Ignatius, much less do I care for the error he held and taught.
many of what we call the early church "fathers' were unsaved religious persons who handed down to us the error they held, which keep people in bondage. Truth, as found in scripture, sets us free.
Rituals, lighting candles, praying with beads, venerating "saints' are religious bondage obscuring Christ.

Now TF, I know you meant it to try and offer help, and for that, I am thankful that you are willing and looking to help others. I just really believe your source material which has much extra-biblical.
I do not see the eastern orthodox church in scripture. I am not an expert on it, but basically, if we cut to the chase, it is the RC church without papal authority ,correct?

There's never been anything wrong with looking at the lives of the people of the Church who believe in Christ. The Bible instructs us to do this very thing. Just because their stories are not written in the Bible doesn't mean that it's wrong to learn about them or to learn about things that they said. He was a bishop of the Church, and he was given his teaching authority from an Apostle of Christ (the Apostle Peter). Why wouldn't we listen to him? The Bible tells us to.

Holy Baptism is a ritual. Christ observed all the Jewish rituals and so did his disciples, even after the resurrection of Christ they were going to the temple at Jerusalem to worship. Annointing with oil, with prayers, for healing is a ritual. gathering together to eat bread and drink wine which are the body and blood of Christ is a ritual. God is all for ritual. God taught ritual all throughout His Word and the very Word of God incarnate upheld it. It is only dead ritual that God disdains. The rituals (sacraments) that God gives us out of His unimaginable Love for us are not dead. They are full of Life and Light -- His Life and Light.

 

[tdidymas]

Augustine did not define the Church's doctrine of original sin. He merely wrote about it, and some of it was highly speculative, admittedly so, and was ultimately not altogether accepted as true by the Church. So the soteriology of the Church is neither Augustinian nor Pelagian. Pelagius underemphasized the necessity of grace in healing the diseased will. Those who allowed their own thinking on original sin to be too heavily influenced by errors in the speculative statements (which were admittedly so) of Augustine have overemphasized the role of grace to such an extreme that human will cannot even desire to turn to God in order to be healed (i.e. ask for grace). But this is heresy. Augustine is not a heretic because he did not insist on his views, which later were shown to be incorrect, but gave preeminence to the judgment of the Church. But those who embrace Augustine's erroneous ideas about original sin and refuse to listen to the Church are mistaken.

So you're saying that I am ignorant of Augustine's teaching, and I get your point. However, you are avoiding the main point of what I said about how the term arbitrary is defined and how you are using it.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Do you want to know what we find most problematic about reformed theology? It is the manner in which those who embrace it understand the term "glory" as it pertains to God. It is almost as if God is thought of as a being who is concerned with the opinions of the intelligent creatures which He has created. "Gods glory", when used the way that you have used it above, amounts to nothing more than the very "vainglory" that Jesus Christ begged us to put to death within ourselves, because that vile, degenerate passion, like pride, is not an attribute of God, and anyone who allows it to exist within their hearts does not... can not... know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, and can not therefor receive the Kingdom of God. The Glory of God is revealed to us as follows:


This is the image of the "Glory" of God. It is also the image of the Love of God. It is also the image of the Wisdom of God. It is also the image of the Power of God. It is also the image of the Justice of God. It is also the image of the Holiness of God. It is also the image of the Goodness of God. It is also the image of the Truth of God.

God is stripped naked, mocked, humiliated, violated by His own creatures, degraded publicly as a criminal, falsely accused, disdained by all, betrayed and abandoned by His friends.

He did not care about any of that. He only cared about what He was giving to others, because He is Love.

When we come to possess what is in this God Who suffered all, then we will understand that the glory of God is just one aspect of what the only True God is: Love. Or to put it another way: God is glorious because God is Love. But why does God suffer over His creatures? God suffers because His creatures have free will, and have used it to stray away from Him and away from His great gift of Eternal Life, which He would give to all men. For this is what He is doing when He "stretches out His hands to them" on the Cross, beckoning all to turn to their Good Shepherd, so that He can heal them and free them from their suffering.

I can quite vehemently tell you that neither God cares what anyone thinks about Him, nor do any of God's children care what anyone thinks about them or about their God. For the saints, it is only what, or actually "WHO" they know that is of any importance whatsoever. Men having freewill and having it play a part in determining the nature of their personal relationships with a Personal God does not detract from God's glory. If anything it is another powerful expression of God's glory.

I think you have a great burden to prove that I am using the term "glory" in the way that you assess. I do not use the term that way, therefore your conclusion is false.
TD

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Reformed theology is basically Calvinism, right? Calvinism is based on T.U.L.I.P, is it not? If so, then I doubt I've assumed too much.

That is not true as James Arminius ( Arminianism)was Dutch Reformed.

hope this helps !!!

 

[tdidymas]

Reformed theology is basically Calvinism, right? Calvinism is based on T.U.L.I.P, is it not? If so, then I doubt I've assumed too much.

It is your false conclusions that you make is what I'm talking about. You confuse R.T. with determinism, and you assume the worst of the TULIP doctrines to put them into the most derogatory light as possible. In the same way, you disregard the Biblical texts I quote as if they don't exist. So then, is our conversation over? Should I just give you the last word and ignore you from now on? I'm trying to find some kind of justification to continue this conversation, so I'll poke one last attempt, and see if you can respond to this:

Jer. 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" So does this apply to the human heart wherein the "free will" makes its decisions? Note he says "deceitful above all things." So then, let's suppose a person makes a decision to follow Christ. That person doesn't have the slightest idea what he is doing (from a spiritual standpoint). Certainly he thinks he knows what he is doing, but his heart is deceitful.

So refer then to the 2 parables of Christ - the sower and the wheat/tares. That man doesn't know what kind of ground he is or what kind of product he is, and doesn't have the slightest idea. He doesn't know if he is the beaten path, rocky ground, ground with thorns, or fertile ground. He doesn't know if he is wheat or tare. So he goes about his Christian walk, or religious life, trying to make himself wheat, or trying to make himself fertile ground, and is convinced he can do so, since he thinks he makes some progress toward that end.

But his heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. The fact is, he cannot make himself wheat or fertile ground, because it takes an act of God to do that. It takes an act of God (a miracle) to change a tare to wheat, or to change beaten path to plowed fertile ground. This is what faith in Christ is for. This faith believes that Christ changes us from natural to spiritual, from old creation to new. And since this faith is the gift of God, Therefore a true believer becomes that due to an act of God in him.

If you oppose this idea, then you must then believe that man's "free will" is what saves a person from their plight. You must then believe that it is the work of man for someone to change himself from bad ground to good ground by virtue of "free will" choices. You must then believe that Christ is the Omega of your life, but not the Alpha, since your "free will" choice is the Alpha of your salvation.
TD

 

[truefiction1]

I think you have a great burden to prove that I am using the term "glory" in the way that you assess. I do not use the term that way, therefore your conclusion is false.
TD

You said that a if a man's own free choice plays any part in salvation, that it takes the glory away from God and gives it to man. If you weren't personally given to a false understanding of God's glory then that statement would never have entered your mind, let alone crossed your keyboard, because you would know that God gave man the freedom to choose or not to choose to be united to Him in Love. Using that choice, therefore has nothing to do with robbing honor from God and giving it to men. The whole idea of it is reprehensible, and putting a smiley face on it does't make it any less reprehensible, but rather, insufferably loathsome.

 

[truefiction1]

It is your false conclusions that you make is what I'm talking about. You confuse R.T. with determinism, and you assume the worst of the TULIP doctrines to put them into the most derogatory light as possible. In the same way, you disregard the Biblical texts I quote as if they don't exist. So then, is our conversation over? Should I just give you the last word and ignore you from now on? I'm trying to find some kind of justification to continue this conversation, so I'll poke one last attempt, and see if you can respond to this:

Jer. 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" So does this apply to the human heart wherein the "free will" makes its decisions? Note he says "deceitful above all things." So then, let's suppose a person makes a decision to follow Christ. That person doesn't have the slightest idea what he is doing (from a spiritual standpoint). Certainly he thinks he knows what he is doing, but his heart is deceitful.

So refer then to the 2 parables of Christ - the sower and the wheat/tares. That man doesn't know what kind of ground he is or what kind of product he is, and doesn't have the slightest idea. He doesn't know if he is the beaten path, rocky ground, ground with thorns, or fertile ground. He doesn't know if he is wheat or tare. So he goes about his Christian walk, or religious life, trying to make himself wheat, or trying to make himself fertile ground, and is convinced he can do so, since he thinks he makes some progress toward that end.

But his heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. The fact is, he cannot make himself wheat or fertile ground, because it takes an act of God to do that. It takes an act of God (a miracle) to change a tare to wheat, or to change beaten path to plowed fertile ground. This is what faith in Christ is for. This faith believes that Christ changes us from natural to spiritual, from old creation to new. And since this faith is the gift of God, Therefore a true believer becomes that due to an act of God in him.

If you oppose this idea, then you must then believe that man's "free will" is what saves a person from their plight. You must then believe that it is the work of man for someone to change himself from bad ground to good ground by virtue of "free will" choices. You must then believe that Christ is the Omega of your life, but not the Alpha, since your "free will" choice is the Alpha of your salvation.
TD

No, we believe that God working in a man by his power (grace) enables the man to become alive. We believe that this is how God responds to those who choose to receive this life. You seem to believe that the ability to choose to want to change does not exist in a man after the fall. And such a belief is untrue no matter how many wrongly interpreted sayings in Scripture are offered in way of evidence to make it seem to be the truth. We do not believe a man has the ability to make his heart clean. That is the gift of God. God's grace alone can restore us. God wills all men to be saved. So the choice to not be saved must be being made by those making the choice. It's common sense.

At the core, reformed theology tells lies about God and about man, created in the image of God, so however one may try to paint it as not being bad, but only being misunderstood, it will never be anything other than lies paraded as the gospel. In a nutshell, God knows beforehand who will "choose", for all eternity, to Love Him and who will choose not to Love Him. God elects the ones whom He knows will be with Him, for salvation, and does not elect the others, because they ultimately chose not to be elected. He knows this about us before time began. Of our own free wills we choose, and we can choose because we bear His image, even with the most wretched of hearts.