What's Wrong With Reformed Theology/Soteriology?

[royal priest]

Esau was hated because he rejected his birthright.

Esau rejected his birthright before he was born. Interesting.

 

[Gup20]

The Bible tells us why Abraham was chosen:

Nehemiah 9:7-8 (NASB) 7 "You are the LORD God, Who chose Abram And brought him out from Ur of the Chaldees, And gave him the name Abraham. 8 "You found his heart faithful before You, And made a covenant with him To give him the land of the Canaanite, Of the Hittite and the Amorite, Of the Perizzite, the Jebusite and the Girgashite-- To give it to his descendants. And You have fulfilled Your promise, For You are righteous.

Deuteronomy 7:6-10 (NASB) 6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 "Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments; 10 but repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them; He will not delay with him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face.
​

Those were chosen because God is keeping His promise to Abraham that those of faith would inherit the righteousness given to him. The group “the descendants of Abraham” are the chosen or elect, and that group has open enrollment. If you have the same faith in the gospel that Abraham had, you are counted as a descendant and an heir of the righteousness given to Abraham.

Galatians 3:6-9 (NASB) 6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.​

 

[Gup20]

Esau rejected his birthright before he was born. Interesting.

Yes, God knew what choice he would make from the foundation of the world.

1 Peter 1:1-2 (NASB) 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.​

 

[royal priest]

Yes, God knew what choice he would make from the foundation of the world.

You're saying Esau not only rejected his birthright before he was born, but he did it before the world was even born?

 

[Gup20]

You're saying Esau not only rejected his birthright before he was born, but he did it before the world was even born?

I don’t claim it was “before the world was born” but rather at the time the world was born. The choosing was according to the foreknowledge of all the choices we’d make.

We see this in the example of Jesus who based the drawing of the Father based upon whom he fore knew would choose to believe:

John 6:64-65 (NASB) 64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."​

 

[tdidymas]

I'll give the short answer: Grace is defined differently by rationalistic theologies than how grace is really experienced in the persons who are being saved by it. It is by this grace that we know God (i.e. through personal relationship), and it is by this experiential knowledge of God, which is communicated by God's grace, that the errors of theologies which "miss the mark" are known.

"Roman" Catholic scholastics taught that grace is a created effect. Reformed writers mostly define it as mere "undeserved favor" from God, and they plug this definition of grace into a rationalistic formula that = salvation by justification through faith alone (as if true faith is ever alone). Through the Way of Life in Christ, however (which exists primarily in the ancient Church), it becomes known that grace is God Himself working by His power, and it is this very Life of the uncreated Godhead that we partake of. It is the Living Water that gives us Life, which we drink of as we enter by the narrow Way, and it gives us Life, and joy, that no one can take from us.

Salvation is "a Way". Grace makes the Way possible.

Not sure what you mean by "a Way", as I see it as "THE Way".

I can't see your explanation as an objection to what I am saying or the implication that my theology is part of this "Western Schism" that doesn't understand grace. If you wish to explain how you think I don't understand grace, you need to say a lot more about it, because I generally agree with you that grace is a personal experience in relationship with God, as it is the very nature of that relationship.

If you wish to claim that Reformed Theology has errors that "miss the mark," then you need to spell it out.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

To be hones

To be honest, this is probably why I'm becoming more Lutheran by the day.

There's plenty I can agree with in Reformed theology, but it tries to position assurance of salvation in God's hidden, unknown predetermined will. In my opinion and experience, it only creates anxiety.

On the other hand, Arminian or non Reformed thought tries to find assurance in man's will. Also, anxiety results.

But when we place assurance in Christ crucified, that Jesus died for us in history, that, to me, comes closer to us talking like the Bible talks.

I'm glad that you are questioning some of these ideas. It took me a while, but I also learned meaning of scripture after questioning what I was taught my whole life.

So, concerning your statement: "it tries to position assurance of salvation in God's hidden, unknown predetermined will" (Reformed Theology) -- I don't know where you get this idea, but not from the Reformed Theology teachers I know about, namely Sproul, MacArthur, Packer, ML Jones, and (of course) Martin Luther, among others like Arthur Pink. I think that your idea actually comes from certain Catholic and Orthodox denominations, as I have heard similar words from some of them (to be specific, a Russian Orthodox priest and one of the Popes who both stated that they can't know whether they are going to heaven or hell).

Or, perhaps I learned assurance from scripture rather than from men. Some of my favorite verses are:
Ps. 91:14, 1 Pet. 1:5, 1 Jn. 5:12, Heb. 6:19, and the pinnacle Rom. 8:16, but there are many others. Further, at least 3 of the apostles in the NT exhort believers to gain assurance.

It is my contention that assurance of salvation is grounded in good doctrine. Supernatural experiences help, but don't last. It's the correct doctrine that lasts and makes a person emotionally stable, in both my own experience, and in observation of others. I began my Christian walk as a full-blown Arminian, and ended up Reformed after many years of Bible study and walking with God.
TD

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I'm glad that you are questioning some of these ideas. It took me a while, but I also learned meaning of scripture after questioning what I was taught my whole life.

So, concerning your statement: "it tries to position assurance of salvation in God's hidden, unknown predetermined will" (Reformed Theology) -- I don't know where you get this idea, but not from the Reformed Theology teachers I know about, namely Sproul, MacArthur, Packer, ML Jones, and (of course) Martin Luther, among others like Arthur Pink. I think that your idea actually comes from certain Catholic and Orthodox denominations, as I have heard similar words from some of them (to be specific, a Russian Orthodox priest and one of the Popes who both stated that they can't know whether they are going to heaven or hell).

Or, perhaps I learned assurance from scripture rather than from men. Some of my favorite verses are:
Ps. 91:14, 1 Pet. 1:5, 1 Jn. 5:12, Heb. 6:19, and the pinnacle Rom. 8:16, but there are many others. Further, at least 3 of the apostles in the NT exhort believers to gain assurance.

It is my contention that assurance of salvation is grounded in good doctrine. Supernatural experiences help, but don't last. It's the correct doctrine that lasts and makes a person emotionally stable, in both my own experience, and in observation of others. I began my Christian walk as a full-blown Arminian, and ended up Reformed after many years of Bible study and walking with God.
TD

Yes there are so many promises from God regarding our assurance of salvation / eternal life.

My position is you either believe Gods promises are true or we make him to be out a liar and not trustworthy.

hope this helps !!!

 

[bling]

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 do not define “original sin” as being “total depravity”. Lots of things happened with Adam and Eve sinning all really to help willing individuals in fulfilling their objective.

Do you believe all humans were and are made in the image of God?

Knowledge of good and evil certainly changed for all mature adults as a result of Adam & Eve’s sin, but is knowledge in and of itself “bad”?

The Bible does not say: “Man’s nature changed with Adam’s sin” and why would it need to, since Adam and Eve sinned with the nature they had and there being just one way for them to sin. The “knowledge of good and evil” does provide lots more ways to sin, so all mature adults will sin.

Is physical death bad in and of itself? Why would you want to stay in this messed up world forever?

No, just because “grace is unmerited” does not mean all are totally depraved, since unmerited grace is part of who God’s is and He was around when Adam and Eve were sinless.

When you say 1 Cor. 2 suggesting it explains: “That wisdom to understand and accept and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is a gift from God.” You seem to be referring to: “14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,

1 Cor 2:14-15 does not say: no one can belief the good news of Jesus, but talks about the deeper thoughts of God, spiritual ideas. The contrast Paul is drawing is between existing Christians and worldly people.

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.

If you are "fat, dumb, and happy" it will not last forever, so sometime in every mature adults’ life, they become hurt and burdened from hurting others in the past, it weighs heavy on their mind (at least until they become hardened). These hurting adults are not searching for some righteous, spiritual truth, but relief from their pain to the point they are just willing to humble themselves to the point of accepting God’s charity.

If the worldly person is to be condemned for not understanding, then he has to be able to understand and a selfish person can “understand”: being burdened and being unburdened because he has become burdened, from there he just has to accept God’s help to become unburdened.

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.

Again, I am not talking about “discerns the gospel enough to obey it” that takes the indwelling Holy Spirit, but just using carnal selfish desires/motives to accept pure charity.

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.

Again, God does all the work, but man has to be just willing to accept undeserved help.

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.

Every person who surrenders still hates his enemy at the point of surrendering and may feel he will be tortured to death for his past war crimes. Christ defines this “death” with the parable of the prodigal son.

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.

Can you be the greatest Lover anyone can imagine and show partiality?

That is not the way I read it in scripture, read my post again.

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

The prodigal son for selfish reasons returned to the father, but it was not to be seen as His son, but just possibly as an undeserving slave.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

“Man’s nature changed with Adam’s sin”

Yet Jesus called the sons of the devil sons of the devil.

Clearly they are not the same nature as sons of God.

 

[bling]

It is very selective to choose one attribute of God over others.. God is also Just , He is also wrath ... God does not love all men , He loves those that are His ... Jesus died for those the Father gave Him..not for all men equally ..

To state an attribute is not “choosing one over the other” since all His attributes work together. Yes, God is always “just” and yes, and God does show wrath, but where does it say: God does not Love with Godly Love everyone?

Jesus died for all the world and not just part of the world.

We are born spiritually dead.. however you choose to define that ... can a dead man choose life?

Scripture says God Hates the wicked ...

When Deity uses the word “Hate” it is not the opposite of Love and you can both Love and hate a person, like we are commanded by Christ to do with our family.

I feel unborn and new born children will not go to hell if they die, so they are not spiritual dead, so what do you think?

 

[bling]

Yet Jesus called the sons of the devil sons of the devil.

Clearly they are not the same nature as sons of God.

Were we all born sons of the devil?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Were we all born sons of the devil?

Does it matter ?

 

[bling]

Does it matter ?

Yes, since that would mean a new born was hell bound.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, since that would mean a new born was hell bound.

Jesus says newborns of unsaved parents are unclean.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When Deity uses the word “Hate” it is not the opposite of Love and you can both Love and hate a person, like we are commanded by Christ to do with our family.

This is not true, not in line with Scripture.

If possible, look up "hate", the word, with all occurences in the Bible.
Blue Letter Bible, KJV or ESV , is one possible resource to do this.

Hate is NOT love less. And not usually , in the Bible, possible to love and to hate as you are proposing.

 

[danielmears]

Jesus said

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

Jesus said, when called good teacher, why call me good, there is only one who is good, the Father, paraphrased. God is love, the scriptures tell us, so when filled with His Spirit man becomes a new creature, loving God with all of our heart and mind, plus others, walking in faith, knowing God is with us! Glory to God, what an amazing righteous system we live in, where it is done us as we believe! That is why it is so important to have faith, to have God/Christ filling us with "real", life!
,

 

[rnmomof7]

To state an attribute is not “choosing one over the other” since all His attributes work together. Yes, God is always “just” and yes, and God does show wrath, but where does it say: God does not Love with Godly Love everyone?

Jesus died for all the world and not just part of the world.

So then you are a universalist?

 

[bcbsr]

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

While there are a number of points you made which I would take issue with, for the sake of brevity I'll just deal with a couple of points, firstlythe order of faith and regeneration.

John 1:12,13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

As we see from those verses, one does not even get the right to become a child of God until they believe. Thus faith precedes regeneration. Likewise it says, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" Gal 3:26 Since faith is the mechanism by which one is born of God, faith must precede regeneration. (being born of God)

And just to add a point, the word "merit" is nowhere found in the NT. The word "works" is found. But according to Paul "faith" is not a work.

Rom 4:2-5 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about— but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.
However, to the man who does not work but believes God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Furthermore salvation is conditioned upon faith, and "to believe" is a command. Acts 16:30,31
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe (imperative) in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" Being an imperative indicates its something the person himself is supposed to do. It's not a work, it's an attitude.

Reformed Theology ignores these facts. It ignores the obvious meaning of "to the man who does not work but believes" which clearly shows from the context a person doing works to earn salvation. They misconstrue "works" there as limited to certain laws of Moses. But in fact the rest of use can clearly see from the context (the verse just prior to that) "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation." that it's clearly referring to the generic idea of earning salvation by one's works. Rom 4:5 Then goes on to state that "faith" is not a work. Faith is an attitude. You can't get paid for mere attitude. For example you may intend to go to work, but "intend" is only an attitude. If you don't actually go to work you're not going to get paid. Likewise with regards to faith. As the Greek Scholar Robinson notes, ""Grace" is God’s part, "faith" ours."

 

[truefiction1]

Not sure what you mean by "a Way", as I see it as "THE Way".

I can't see your explanation as an objection to what I am saying or the implication that my theology is part of this "Western Schism" that doesn't understand grace. If you wish to explain how you think I don't understand grace, you need to say a lot more about it, because I generally agree with you that grace is a personal experience in relationship with God, as it is the very nature of that relationship.

If you wish to claim that Reformed Theology has errors that "miss the mark," then you need to spell it out.
TD

On account of the fact that grace is uncreated energy emanating from the very essence of the Holy Trinity, it is therefore not able to be defined through intellectual abstractions. The only way to be saved by grace is to be touched by it, healed by it, and transformed by it.

When any one of us is sanctified by this grace (dispensed to each by the Holy Spirit to a measure which we are able to receive it without being injured by it), we become more like Christ, Who Lives in our hearts. When we become sanctified enough to acquire the "mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16), then all of the Christological and soteriological heresies become obvious, along with their abominably injurious effects upon people who are taught them.

Salvation is not a "doctrine". Salvation is a mystery. Salvation is a Way that is Lived. Salvation cannot be taught, it can only be experienced by each of us directly from God Who saves. All that can be said of salvation by means of words and images are metaphorical signs at best. These signs point towards and lead us into the great Mystery of Salvation. But nobody can define what salvation is, put it in the form of a dogmatic belief that defines what salvation is, and then give this belief to some other man and instruct them to "believe this way about salvation and you will be saved". If we do this we create an idol, and teach others to bow down to it.

Does your approach to salvation match up with any of what I laid out in the preceding paragraph? If so, which parts of the paragraph? The first part, or the last part?