What's Wrong With Reformed Theology/Soteriology?

[Woke]

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

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 started your comment by stating this false statement, "If God loves the wicked with the same love as He loves those He saves." And since in the next sentence or two appear you have based your whole comment on that false statement, sorry, because of that, I can't spend time to read the rest. Best to back up such comments with scriptures that directly prove your points, if you want to help those wanting to follow God.

 

[bling]

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.

Luke 14: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

And

John 12: 25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.



Hate can have many different meanings and we are to: Luke 6: 27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

The opposite of Loving a person is apathy toward that person.

I am to love others like I Love myself but also hate my life.
How would you define "hate" in these verses?

 

[bling]

So then you are a universalist?

No not at all! Have you been reading my posts?
The only way to resolve the issue is to have humans do something, but it cannot be "something": worthy of anything, honorable, righteous, glorious or noble, yet it can be accepting pure charity for selfish motives.

 

[renniks]

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).

Straw man. Saying you were better because you made the right choice, denies that free will exists You are just changing what determined the choice from God to some thing God implants in you. A real choice is not uninfluenced, but neither is it predetermined.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How would you define "hate" in these verses?

Don't.
---------------------------------------------
See what Scripture says instead.
Your enemies, for instance, who would just as soon kill you as have breakfast,
your enemies as written, who hate you.
That is hate. That is what Scripture says in places. The same original word (I looked it up in Blue Letter Bible - EVERY INSTANCE of the word "hate" in English Bibles).

It DEFINITELY does not mean "love less", no, not at all.

 

[bling]

Don't.
---------------------------------------------
See what Scripture says instead.
Your enemies, for instance, who would just as soon kill you as have breakfast,
your enemies as written, who hate you.
That is hate. That is what Scripture says in places. The same original word (I looked it up in Blue Letter Bible - EVERY INSTANCE of the word "hate" in English Bibles).

It DEFINITELY does not mean "love less", no, not at all.

So that is the "hate" you have for your family?

 

[tdidymas]

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.

Note what I highlighted, I don't see that in scripture, so where do you get that idea?

"Lots of things happened" - I think you better spell it out, since my response is "so what"? Either mankind inherited the sinful nature, or not. This is the point of Original Sin and Total Depravity alike. There may be some minor nuances to each, but the effect is the same. If you have a different def, then you need to spell it out.

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

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Either you believe that mankind inherited a sinful nature like Augustine and the reformers taught; or you don't believe that, like Pelagius and Finney taught.

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”?

You're missing the point. "Knowledge of good and evil" is a euphemism, like dozens of euphemisms in scripture. It means Adam and Eve get to determine what is good and evil for themselves. It's also called autonomy or free will, and it's the essence of the sinful nature, because the idea is that man's will is no longer under God's authority. Original Sin of Adam & Eve's detachment from God's direction has been inherited to all mankind.

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.

Human nature by itself is not sinful, since Jesus had human nature and "knew no sin" (that is, never committed any sin). The fact that man's nature now is detached from God's direction shows that man has a sinful human nature. This is proven by the fact that children at a very young age naturally commit sins like stingyness, greed, stealing, coveting, cruelty, and all sorts of other things. They must be taught to do right. But they do wrong by nature. It is also proven by Paul's argument in Rom. 5:12, saying "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."

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

Ok, so Paul wanted to leave, but chose to stay for the benefit of others.

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.

I can't see where you are making any sense here. Grace is unmerited because no person has any ability to produce the required righteousness to be right with God.

But if what you say is true, then why did Jesus die? According to your logic, you might as well be Muslim, since they have no reason for God to be merciful, but just that "He is."

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.

Stay in context. Paul is still talking about the gospel he preached. If you claim he isn't, then you're out of context.

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.

Hurting people only points to a need for spiritual healing, but is not nearly the same thing. Stay on point, which was that unbelievers don't know their future judgment because they don't believe the scripture. They can only be spiritually healed by an act of God.

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.

It's not that an unbeliever cannot theoretically understand the gospel. It's that they stubbornly refuse it because of their unbelief. They love darkness rather than light. They love their sin more than God. They love their personal autonomy more than God's will. Their need is spiritual, not natural. Therefore to meet their need it takes an act of God.

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.

Not sure your meaning here, but if being reconciled with God was merely a matter of accepting "pure charity," then Jesus died in vain.

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

An individual's willingness to accept undeserved help from God can only come after spiritual rebirth. Prior to rebirth, every person is hostile to God, per Rom. 3:10-18. Only after rebirth comes a change of attitude and acceptance, since the faith in Christ is already there - 1 Jn. 5:1.

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.

No, I disagree with you on this. When a person surrenders his will to God, the hope of being loved by God is already in his heart, therefore his hate for God is diminished to the point that he becomes willing to volunteer his surrender. Just because someone still feels some residual sinfulness of loathing God's will on certain points, doesn't mean he's not yet born again. Faith transcends feelings, and true believers trust in Christ's delivering power, regardless of how they feel at any given moment.

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.

You are using the term partiality outside of Biblical context. Every time the scripture says that God is not partial, it is talking about race, nationality, position, wealth, and every other thing that people are usually prejudiced about. When God has His own reasons for electing some to salvation, it has nothing to do with partiality. Therefore, God is not being partial at all when He elects some to salvation and not others, because His election originates within Himself, not with people.

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.

The prodigal son's selfish reasons do not correspond with God's choice to save someone. So he had selfish reasons, so what? He had hope that he would be received in some fashion, so that hope is what drove him home. So if anyone becomes a Christian for selfish reasons, so what? If God is at work in that person's heart, they will have hope of being received in some fashion, whether known or unknown. What Christ does for us is prove by His death and resurrection that God the Father promises to receive all who believe and obey the gospel. And this simply identifies who is received, but God's supernatural working is the cause.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

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)

You're reading a certain chronology into this verse because of your bias. But note his comment on the first statement: "who were born..." this is past tense - those who believe were born of God.

In the same way, 1 Jn. 5:1 says "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Note that it says is born, not will be. So believing and being born are apparently simultaneous, but rebirth is the logical precedent of believing, since Paul writes very clearly that the natural man (i.e. not born again) can't believe.

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.

Right, faith is NOT a work, but is a GIFT from God. Eph. 2:5. According to Eph. 2:8-10, faith, grace, and salvation is a full package as God's gift, not broken up into 3 different things that are done separately.

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.

Justification and righteousness logically follow faith. But since faith is the gift of God, and natural man doesn't believe, believing comes after spiritual rebirth, and this is how we come to believe.

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.

According to your words here, if faith is something a person is supposed to do, then it's a work. If a person must change his own attitude (without God working in his heart for it), then it's a work of man. The problem with denying that faith is the gift of God, it makes all the wisdom, spiritual understanding, hope, motivation, vision, and everything else needed for the exercise of faith, all the working of man digging it out of his own corrupt heart. But Jer. 17:9 says "The heart is more deceitful than all else, and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" So God has to change a person's heart by means of spiritual rebirth in order for that person's attitude to change toward God from hostility to surrender.

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."

I greatly differ with your conversation here. In the first place, I think you have Reformed Theology all wrong. My understanding of Paul's writings is that "works" is anything a person does to obtain salvation. So then, if a person has to do something before God will act to save him, then that salvation is initiated by man's works, however minuscule that work might be (such as a "decision for Christ").

So if Robinson is correct, that "faith" is our part (the implication is before being born again), then a person is doing something to obtain salvation. I understand that since we are steeped in the natural reasoning when we start out as Christians, such is our viewpoint. But the apostle Paul corrects our thinking in order to bolster our faith in God, by saying that it was all God's work to begin with. 1 Cor. 1:30-31 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”
TD

 

[tdidymas]

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?

I don't agree with your approach to the subject. In the first place, doctrines of salvation aren't merely intellectual as you seem to think in your response. Soteriology means study of salvation. It's simply a way of saying how do the apostles define and describe salvation in the NT. So, these doctrines are telling us how God goes about saving us. It gives us light for us to understand where we're going and how to get there. It gives us confidence that God is working the way the apostles describe it. So, these doctrines of salvation is not for the unbeliever, since they can't understand them. They are for the believer who needs to know how deep God has worked in their life. The unbeliever just needs to know that Christ died for our sins, to deliver us from our sinful ways and from the wrath of God.

Furthermore, much of the NT was written to correct many errors that came into the 1st Century churches. The whole point of well-defining the salvation process is to maintain the faith as the apostles taught it. One epistle states to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to us by the apostles. The Bible is the only thing we have as a standard to make sure we aren't going astray into error, like those who try to merge Christianity with other religions.

Salvation can be known clearly and distinctly by means of familiarity with scripture. Some of the obvious terms are eternal life, resurrection, redemption, deliverance, justification, sanctification, among others. How can we experience these and believe with our whole heart, unless we are clear about what Jesus and the apostles taught concerning these ideas? I don't discount that some experience them without intellectual understanding; but if a person is really experiencing salvation, they will want to fill their intellect with understanding also. It's called "hungry for God's word," like Peter says "as newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby."

Finally, the "mind of Christ" is not some mystical knowledge you get by prayer and fasting. Paul is using that term in reference to the gospel he taught, so when he says "we have the mind of Christ," he is saying we have His teachings, and those teachings are in the gospels. This is why Paul says that he learned the gospel directly from Christ, and the apostle John says "whoever is born of God listens to us."
TD

 

[tdidymas]

You started your comment by stating this false statement, "If God loves the wicked with the same love as He loves those He saves." And since in the next sentence or two appear you have based your whole comment on that false statement, sorry, because of that, I can't spend time to read the rest. Best to back up such comments with scriptures that directly prove your points, if you want to help those wanting to follow God.

That false statement you refer to was what someone else said. Their claim was that since God is love, they expected Him to love everyone equally. My comment is the response to it, as I stated in the previous statement. I gave the link to the other thread so that anyone can see where this conversation came from. I started this thread because that person thought this discussion was getting off the OP of that thread, and wanted to discuss it in another thread. So, here we are...
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Straw man. Saying you were better because you made the right choice, denies that free will exists You are just changing what determined the choice from God to some thing God implants in you. A real choice is not uninfluenced, but neither is it predetermined.

How is a real choice not predetermined? I think you have a tremendous philosophical obstacle to overcome here, because of these Biblical statements:
1. men do not come to the light because they love darkness
2. the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they cannot see the light of the gospel
3. those who oppose gospel truth are held captive by the devil to do his will
4. no one is righteous (that is, before believing in Christ)
5. the fleshly mind cannot submit to God
6. the world is under the control of the evil one

And there are many others. Rom. 3:10-18 ought to give us enough evidence that no one in their natural state is able to make any righteous decision in regard to what God considers righteous. And since faith in Christ is considered righteous by God, no unrighteous person could do it. Therefore, my statement can't be a straw man, because it is based on what scripture clearly teaches. God has to supernaturally bring an individual to life while they are hearing the gospel. That is what Eph. 2:5 means "even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)." God "made us alive" by His supernatural working. Because of His love He predestined us (Eph. 1:5), which is described in 2:5 as to how He did it. Therefore, God had to predetermine our faith and choice to obey the gospel, otherwise we could not be saved, and likely wouldn't even want it, since we would still be lovers of darkness.
TD

 

[renniks]

How is a real choice not predetermined? I think you have a tremendous philosophical obstacle to overcome here, because of these Biblical statements:
1. men do not come to the light because they love darkness
2. the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they cannot see the light of the gospel
3. those who oppose gospel truth are held captive by the devil to do his will
4. no one is righteous (that is, before believing in Christ)
5. the fleshly mind cannot submit to God
6. the world is under the control of the evil one

You are not understanding that everyone is given enough light to come to God.
John 12:32

 

[renniks]

5 means "even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)." God "made us alive" by His supernatural working. Because of His love He predestined us (Eph. 1:5), which is described in 2:5 as to how He did it. Therefore, God had to predetermine our faith and choice to obey the gospel, otherwise we could not be saved, and likely wouldn't even want it, since we would still be lovers of darkness.

You are skipping some important information. By grace, through faith. No, we are not saving ourselves, salvation is a gift, but faith is required. We are chosen in him. This isn't an individual choosing. Whoever is in him is destined for adoption.

"thats be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

We have to trust and believe in order to be saved. It's not unconditional.

 

[truefiction1]

I don't agree with your approach to the subject. In the first place, doctrines of salvation aren't merely intellectual as you seem to think in your response. Soteriology means study of salvation. It's simply a way of saying how do the apostles define and describe salvation in the NT. So, these doctrines are telling us how God goes about saving us. It gives us light for us to understand where we're going and how to get there. It gives us confidence that God is working the way the apostles describe it. So, these doctrines of salvation is not for the unbeliever, since they can't understand them. They are for the believer who needs to know how deep God has worked in their life. The unbeliever just needs to know that Christ died for our sins, to deliver us from our sinful ways and from the wrath of God.

Furthermore, much of the NT was written to correct many errors that came into the 1st Century churches. The whole point of well-defining the salvation process is to maintain the faith as the apostles taught it. One epistle states to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to us by the apostles. The Bible is the only thing we have as a standard to make sure we aren't going astray into error, like those who try to merge Christianity with other religions.

Salvation can be known clearly and distinctly by means of familiarity with scripture. Some of the obvious terms are eternal life, resurrection, redemption, deliverance, justification, sanctification, among others. How can we experience these and believe with our whole heart, unless we are clear about what Jesus and the apostles taught concerning these ideas? I don't discount that some experience them without intellectual understanding; but if a person is really experiencing salvation, they will want to fill their intellect with understanding also. It's called "hungry for God's word," like Peter says "as newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby."

Finally, the "mind of Christ" is not some mystical knowledge you get by prayer and fasting. Paul is using that term in reference to the gospel he taught, so when he says "we have the mind of Christ," he is saying we have His teachings, and those teachings are in the gospels. This is why Paul says that he learned the gospel directly from Christ, and the apostle John says "whoever is born of God listens to us."
TD

We speak of the "mysterious and hidden wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 2:7), which Paul learned directly from the Spirit of God, Who imparts grace upon grace to the likes of Paul and of all the saints. The whole of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 2, which Paul sums up by saying "we have the mind of Christ" is actually about the Holy Spirit's ongoing and never-ending work of revealing the mystery of Life in Christ, not merely through the words of Scripture, but through direct encounter with each of the saints personally, within their hearts and illuminating their minds to understand the Gospel teachings.

The Holy Spirit does not distort the face of God, but reformed doctrines of salvation most certainly do. That is why the "spiritual man" doesn't accept the false doctrines of salvation put forth anyone who would reform a truth that can never be stomped out anyway (Luke 8:16). When God sends a light into the world, that light stays in the world, and it can't be snuffed out, or hidden, or otherwise obscured.

 

[Palmfever]

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

According to Calvin, Charles Darwin and those who push causal determinism, nothing.

When Charles Darwin first published On the Origin of Species. Shortly after Darwin put forth his theory of evolution, his cousin Sir Francis Galton began to draw out the implications: If we have evolved, then mental faculties like intelligence must be hereditary. But we use those faculties—which some people have to a greater degree than others—to make decisions. So our ability to choose our fate is not free, but depends on our biological inheritance. The Atlantic

Science has trouble with free will also.
Psychology Today:
Do humans have the ability to make their own choices and determine their own fates—a concept more commonly known as free will? Or our people's futures determined solely by powers outside of their control, like the physics and biology of the brain? The question of free will has long challenged philosophers and religious thinkers, and scientists have examined the problem from psychological, biological, and genetic perspectives.

Several seminal neurological studies, for instance, have concluded that the brain lights up with activity several seconds before a person becomes consciously aware of a decision, which some argue is an indication that people don’t have free will and that human actions are just the product of internal electrical activity.

Roy F. Baumeister
It has become fashionable to say that people have no free will. Many scientists cannot imagine how the idea of free will could be reconciled with the laws of physics and chemistry. Brain researchers say that the brain is just a bunch of nerve cells that fire as a direct result of chemical and electrical events, with no room for free will. Others note that people are unaware of some causes of their behavior, such as unconscious cues or genetic predispositions, and extrapolate to suggest that all behavior may be caused that way, so that conscious choosing is an illusion.
For full article, Yes, You Have Free Will. This Is Why.

One of the scriptures those who believe we are all pre-programmed zombie androids dancing to a puppet master who made us in His image quote is; Romans, 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. And yet… “Many are called and few are chosen”. Paul’s statement above is either not true, or someone misinterpreted it. If He justified those individuals He called, how can many be called and few chosen?

If you buy into Calvin’s mistake you must believe Christ/God misspoke when He claimed “Many are called but few chosen.

Calvin says you have no choice.

Science says you may have no choice.

Darwin says you have no choice.

God says you do.

Eze, 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”

Who you gonna listen to? Clue, we are made in God’s image, and He is no preprogrammed android.

John, 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. (Free will)

 

[tdidymas]

You are not understanding that everyone is given enough light to come to God.
John 12:32

Obviously not, since many will be cast into the lake of fire, and Paul says that unbelievers are blinded. Your idea sounds so great like humanism, but is not Biblical.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

You are skipping some important information. By grace, through faith. No, we are not saving ourselves, salvation is a gift, but faith is required. We are chosen in him. This isn't an individual choosing. Whoever is in him is destined for adoption.

"thats be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

We have to trust and believe in order to be saved. It's not unconditional.

Grace and faith are together the gift of God. Faith comes by hearing the word of God - notice it says "comes." That means it's not conjured out of the wicked human heart, but it is put there by God through the working of His Spirit. The sealing of the Spirit is a different action than the gift of faith. So, I am praising God here, and not the human ego.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

We speak of the "mysterious and hidden wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 2:7), which Paul learned directly from the Spirit of God, Who imparts grace upon grace to the likes of Paul and of all the saints. The whole of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 2, which Paul sums up by saying "we have the mind of Christ" is actually about the Holy Spirit's ongoing and never-ending work of revealing the mystery of Life in Christ, not merely through the words of Scripture, but through direct encounter with each of the saints personally, within their hearts and illuminating their minds to understand the Gospel teachings.

The Holy Spirit does not distort the face of God, but reformed doctrines of salvation most certainly do. That is why the "spiritual man" doesn't accept the false doctrines of salvation put forth anyone who would reform a truth that can never be stomped out anyway (Luke 8:16). When God sends a light into the world, that light stays in the world, and it can't be snuffed out, or hidden, or otherwise obscured.

I agree with your first statement, as you essentially say the same thing as I said earlier. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth of the gospel to us. It doesn't come by human reasoning nor by conventional wisdom, as it says in John 1:12-13.

Your judgment of reformed doctrines is false. If you can prove your statement, then do so, since it's what this thread is about. You haven't done it so far.
TD

 

[truefiction1]

I agree with your first statement, as you essentially say the same thing as I said earlier. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth of the gospel to us. It doesn't come by human reasoning nor by conventional wisdom, as it says in John 1:12-13.

Your judgment of reformed doctrines is false. If you can prove your statement, then do so, since it's what this thread is about. You haven't done it so far.
TD

Express the reformed doctrine of salvation as best as you can. Then I'll be happy to attempt to reveal how it is that it cannot be the mystery of salvation.

 

[tdidymas]

According to Calvin, Charles Darwin and those who push causal determinism, nothing.

When Charles Darwin first published On the Origin of Species. Shortly after Darwin put forth his theory of evolution, his cousin Sir Francis Galton began to draw out the implications: If we have evolved, then mental faculties like intelligence must be hereditary. But we use those faculties—which some people have to a greater degree than others—to make decisions. So our ability to choose our fate is not free, but depends on our biological inheritance. The Atlantic

Science has trouble with free will also.
Psychology Today:
Do humans have the ability to make their own choices and determine their own fates—a concept more commonly known as free will? Or our people's futures determined solely by powers outside of their control, like the physics and biology of the brain? The question of free will has long challenged philosophers and religious thinkers, and scientists have examined the problem from psychological, biological, and genetic perspectives.

Several seminal neurological studies, for instance, have concluded that the brain lights up with activity several seconds before a person becomes consciously aware of a decision, which some argue is an indication that people don’t have free will and that human actions are just the product of internal electrical activity.

Roy F. Baumeister
It has become fashionable to say that people have no free will. Many scientists cannot imagine how the idea of free will could be reconciled with the laws of physics and chemistry. Brain researchers say that the brain is just a bunch of nerve cells that fire as a direct result of chemical and electrical events, with no room for free will. Others note that people are unaware of some causes of their behavior, such as unconscious cues or genetic predispositions, and extrapolate to suggest that all behavior may be caused that way, so that conscious choosing is an illusion.
For full article, Yes, You Have Free Will. This Is Why.

One of the scriptures those who believe we are all pre-programmed zombie androids dancing to a puppet master who made us in His image quote is; Romans, 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. And yet… “Many are called and few are chosen”. Paul’s statement above is either not true, or someone misinterpreted it. If He justified those individuals He called, how can many be called and few chosen?

If you buy into Calvin’s mistake you must believe Christ/God misspoke when He claimed “Many are called but few chosen.

Calvin says you have no choice.

Science says you may have no choice.

Darwin says you have no choice.

God says you do.

Eze, 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”

Who you gonna listen to? Clue, we are made in God’s image, and He is no preprogrammed android.

John, 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. (Free will)

It seems to me you are making several common mistakes in your assessment. Firstly, I do not hold to the idea of determinism, and it appears to me that you are confusing reformed theology with determinism.

Secondly, The Bible says that "the whole world is under the control of the evil one." So if you think that man in his natural state has a free will (that is, to always make righteous choices), then you are deluded.

Thirdly, individuals who come to Christ are chosen of God, and the Bible is clear about that, for example 1 Jn. 5:1 and Jn 1:12-13. So since all individuals are under the control of Satan, God has to do something supernatural in an individual to free him from Satan's control. Col. 1:13 says that God translated us from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of Christ. We were translated by God, we didn't jump into it by ourselves.

Fourthly, I think you confuse the natural will with the spiritual. The natural will is influenced by the flesh, circumstances, experiences, and natural reasoning. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2 and other places that gospel is not understood by such people who have not been made spiritual. It takes an act of God in our hearts and minds to get the wisdom to obey the gospel.

Fifthly, don't confuse the two kinds of calling. General calling to all men who may or may not come to Christ is stated by your quote "many are called, but few chosen." Special calling is the one where God saves all who are called, as in Rom. 8:30 "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Do you see the difference in the two, where in one case many are called but not saved, but in the other case, everyone called is saved?

Therefore, God had to predetermine the salvation of some, since all men love darkness and would never come to Christ if God didn't do something drastic to them. The fact that many are left to their own devices is shown in Rom. 9 and Rev. 20. God is not unjust to leave them alone, but intends to exact just punishment on them, since "the wages of sin is death."
TD