Why are so many against reformed Theology…

[1Reformedman]

SO then obviously the "U" in Reformed Theology is not true at all, and God's choice is conditional.

not bob and you prove by that statement you just dont get it.

 

[1Reformedman]

not bob and you prove by that statement you just dont get it.

No bob. typo

 

[Albion]

When he stated "Reformed claim God meticulously controls everything in creation, down to the most base evil actions" I think he was talking about double predestination, which Romans 9:22 and other verses do seem to support. However, this fellow believer may not have a good understanding of that concept.

Could be, but I took it to mean that every last thing that happens has been predestined by God, including every last action or decision which the human makes.

This notion that for God to have predestined someone to salvation means that he also has rendered that person a mere robot is often heard.

 

[1Reformedman]

Could be, but I took it to mean that every last thing that happens has been predestined by God, including every last action or decision which the human makes.

This notion that for God to have predestined someone to salvation means that he also has rendered that person a mere robot is often heard.

and the robot argument was debunked 400 years ago

 

[Oseas]

Could be, but I took it to mean that every last thing that happens has been predestined by God, including every last action or decision which the human makes.

This notion that for God to have predestined someone to salvation means that he also has rendered that person a mere robot is often heard.

John 1:v.11-13
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[BNR32FAN]

ok for instance, in the English we see the word hell used often in the NT and when folks see that, and from erroneous traditions from behind the pulpit, hear the term they often think of the lake of fire. However, in the Greek, the lake of fire is never referred to as what hell means in the greek. In the greek Hell is never the lake of fire but refers to either the place the damned souls reside before judgment but after physical death (aka Hades) or it can also mean Grave where the body returns to the ground after physical death. Context is key as to which is being referred. The lake of fire in the Greek is Limnene tou pryos, not Hades or the grave.

So when we see verses that talk about someone being sent to hell that is most often referring to hades. Even in hades, it seems the separation is agonizing and torturous but this is not a physical agony or torture because the judgment has not yet been rendered and even then the torture and agony is about the eternal separation from God and his kind provisions, not some idea that God is going to torture those in the lake of fire. Torturing is evil and God can't be tempted with evil. Being separated from God and his common grace, let alone saving grace, is the torture and agony.

The word hell is not in the entire chapter. How does this explanation change anything about my understanding of John 15:1-10?

 

[Albion]

I suspect that most all of Christendom (if you read their official theologies, would agree that God is free to do what he wants. Sure, there are always fringe groups that really don't follow the Bible, but I'm talking the majority of mainline denominations.
If I say it wouldn't be fair of God to do X, it's because of what God says about himself in scripture, for example, that he is no respecter of individuals, but that Jesus died for all.

You mean, I take it, that you aren't in the camp that says "God can't do that because it would be unfair, not treating everyone the same" or something in that vein. Rather, it's that you don't find the famous Reformed view about Election, etc. to be in accord with Scripture. I can appreciate that better, if this is the case.

But that doesn't mean I agree to the proposition. This is a dispute that will never end, with one side citing certain verses and the other side citing different ones. What I feel, though, is that many of the ones selected by the freewill folks are misunderstood while the ones that support the idea of Election are rather "point blank." And one thing I absolutely reject, although I read it often from someone or other, is the claim that there are NO verses in the Bible that support predestination.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

So before your granddaughter was born, God did not know whether she would wind up in heaven or hell?

OF COURSE He knew (Omniscience will do that for you). But that's not the question at all!! The question is: - Is the "U" (UNCONDITIONAL) in Reformed Theology an accurate presentation of God's CRITERIA, or not. Did He Thousands of years ago (according to reformed theology) Arbitrarily "Elect"/REJECT people based on NO CRITERIA , other than His personal decision at the time, or is there more involved?? Reformed Theology eliminates "Choice", since it's all been decided.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

not bob and you prove by that statement you just dont get it.

What don't I get?? You SHOULD be able to explain what I'm missing - if you know.

 

[1Reformedman]

The word hell is not in the entire chapter. How does this explanation change anything about my understanding of John 15:1-10?

The word hell was just an example of how when we read in English we most often use westernized thinking instead of applying Greek thought from the original language. That is the problem many folks make when eisegeting the word of God instead of exegeting it. Understanding how Greek grammar, and Hebrew grammar for that matter, works will greatly increase your biblical understanding of the context when you read a passage in the bible.

 

[1Reformedman]

OF COURSE He knew (Omniscience will do that for you). But that's not the question at all!! The question is: - Is the "U" (UNCONDITIONAL) in Reformed Theology an accurate presentation of God's CRITERIA, or not. Did He Thousands of years ago (according to reformed theology) Arbitrarily "Elect"/REJECT people based on NO CRITERIA , other than His personal decision at the time, or is there more involved?? Reformed Theology eliminates "Choice", since it's all been decided.

why do you keep using the term arbitrary when you have as of yet to substantiate the claim to the idea that God is capable of being arbitrary. Jeremiah 29:11 debunks the idea that God's sovereign plans for his elect are arbitrary.

 

[fhansen]

Being separated from God and his common grace, let alone saving grace, is the torture and agony.

Yes, for eternity.

 

[1Reformedman]

What don't I get?? You SHOULD be able to explain what I'm missing - if you know.

Bob it has been explained to you and you reject it because you can't get past your own presuppositions.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

It seems from your profile you are a Charismatic which puts your personal revelations on par with Holy Scriptures.

God's WORD to Me - IS on par with the Biblical record, since the SAME GOD is speaking in both cases. Or don't you believe that God DOES still communicate with his people???

Note: I AGree that if A "personal revelation" contradicts the Written Word, then it's demonic. However, if it contradicts "Man's Theology", Then it may well be "Man's theology" that's in error.

 

[Tra Phull]

reflecting asked me how I "handle" Acts 2:23

He also alleged of a charismatic that that the charismatic put his own revelations on a par with Scripture. What a bizarre accusation. Simply from seeing "charismatic" in the profile. Wow.
I am a charismatic, I do not consider any personal revelations on a PAR with Scripture.

On to how I "handle" Acts 2:23. I HANDLE IT by comparing it to other scriptures of a similar nature. Many scriptures reveal that Christ knew He was going to be killed and raised the third day. I see other scriptures where it is like there is not a DEAD CERTAINTY that He would be finally rejected, the most notable in Gethsemane when He prayed "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless Your will (Fathers), not mine be done." So I see Jesus, in agony, considering that the cup might pass from Him. Another time, Jesus wept over Jerusalem, saying He would have gathered them like a hen gathers its chicks, but THEY WOULD NOT. I see synergy, I see people's choices in the deal, even though Christ is spoken of as " slain from the foundation of the world".

The opinions of some that God saves or damns with no regard to a person's future choice and perseverance in that choice seem opposite to the Bible which I do NOT place any "personal revelations" above.

I think Acts 2:23 is Stephen preaching right before they stoned him. Do you think Stephen went on with such a long sermon, knowing it was a LOST CAUSE?

It was NOT a LOST cause, Saul of Tarsus, holding men's coats so they could throw rocks at Stephen, May not have "changed his mind" at Stephen's words, but he did later. Paul had sermons later based on a rehearsing of what God did for Israel, just like Stephen's final sermon was.

OK, this thread is about WHY non-Reformed are that way. I will give some thoughts about why I think this "Reformed jazz" has elements in it going all the way back to Augustine, and the acronym TULIP which was coined maybe 1900-1905, and everything in between which can be SOURCES for this ever-moving-the-goalposts theology.

 

[Oseas]

ok for instance, in the English we see the word hell used often in the NT and when folks see that, and from erroneous traditions from behind the pulpit, hear the term they often think of the lake of fire. However, in the Greek, the lake of fire is never referred to as what hell means in the greek. In the greek Hell is never the lake of fire but refers to either the place the damned souls reside before judgment but after physical death (aka Hades) or it can also mean Grave where the body returns to the ground after physical death. Context is key as to which is being referred. The lake of fire in the Greek is Limnene tou pryos, not Hades or the grave.

So when we see verses that talk about someone being sent to hell that is most often referring to hades. Even in hades, it seems the separation is agonizing and torturous but this is not a physical agony or torture because the judgment has not yet been rendered and even then the torture and agony is about the eternal separation from God and his kind provisions, not some idea that God is going to torture those in the lake of fire. Torturing is evil and God can't be tempted with evil. Being separated from God and his common grace, let alone saving grace, is the torture and agony.

Matthew 25:v.41
41 Then shall JESUS say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye CURSED, into everlasting FIRE, prepared for the Devil and his messengers:

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Bob it has been explained to you and you reject it because you can't get past your own presuppositions.

Standard non-answer - I.E. "you just don't understand".

 

[1Reformedman]

You mean, I take it, that you aren't in the camp that says "God can't do that because it would be unfair, not treating everyone the same" or something in that vein. Rather, it's that you don't find the famous Reformed view about Election, etc. to be in accord with Scripture. I can appreciate that better, if this is the case.

But that doesn't mean I agree to the proposition. This is a dispute that will never end, with one side citing certain verses and the other side citing different ones. What I feel, though, is that many of the ones selected by the freewill folks are misunderstood while the ones that support the idea of Election are rather "point blank." And one thing I absolutely reject, although I read it often from someone or other, is the claim that there are NO verses in the Bible that support predestination.

I agree with you. The bible is riddled with verses that speak about predestination. How one can miss it is beyond me. Even when I was Synergist/Arminian I saw predestination in scripture. Its what caused me to walk away from the free-will doctrine.

 

[Tra Phull]

I am sorry, redleghunter was autocorrected to reflecting. I have no Edit button on this Kindle.

Double Predestination was present in Augustine, a thousand years before Calvin. The ancient church rejected Pelagius and Augustine BOTH in this matter. Augustine, who "won the day in some things, like having Amillennialism oust premillennialism

 

[Concord1968]

And so this thread shakes out they way they always do, with 6-12 Calvinists ganging up on 2-3 non-Calvinists