Why are so many against reformed Theology…

The Worstminster Confusion can try to put forth the double-speak that it does, but violence is indeed done to the will of the creatures by Reformed Theology.

Reformed theology claims that God predestined some for examination with no regard for their deeds, choices, beliefs or even their EXISTENCE.

Damnation, not examination
Sorry

renniks said:

That's pelagarian. Arminians don't believe we can choose Christ until he extends prevanient grace to us.

Click to expand...

Which was 2000 years ago on the cross. If you're still waiting for that grace, then you must not believe it was delivered in the first place. Sounds a lot like dispensationalism. We're still waiting for the Messiah to come.

Tra Phull said:

The Worstminster Confusion can try to put forth the double-speak that it does, but violence is indeed done to the will of the creatures by Reformed Theology.

Reformed theology claims that God predestined some for examination with no regard for their deeds, choices, beliefs or even their EXISTENCE.

Click to expand...

If, as expected (subject to testing) of RT, this is true , then yes, it is terrible violence to Yahweh's Word, Plan and Purpose by men opposed to Him.

Al Touthentop said:

It isn't scripture and it doesn't conform to scripture.

Click to expand...

Whether it conforms to scripture is, I suppose, up for debate. But there is no doubt that it is what Reformed theology teaches.

No one said it was scripture. But The Westminster Confession of Faith is what Reformed theology teaches and that is why I referred to it here for the benefit of "Tra Phull" who had, perhaps inadvertently, misrepresented that teaching..

His student said:

Concerning His Word John says at the end of His gospel (in the most massive understatement in the history of the universe):

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." John 21:25

Click to expand...

That's the opposite of understatement. It's hyperbole. New Testament writers used hyperbole to great effect.

Al Touthentop said:

That's the opposite of understatement. It's hyperbole. New Testament writers used hyperbole to great effect.

Click to expand...

Actually it isn't hyperbole at all. The scriptures are clear that everything was created by His Word, for His Word, and in His Word all things exist. They couldn't be more clear on that.

His decrees are the be all and end all of everything He does outside of His inherent nature.

Hazelelponi said:

Honestly, partial definitions don't really cut it, and depending on how a question is asked, the most straightforward answer to the immediate question or situation can only give you a portion of the whole.

Total Depravity, yes, it's about man's inability to chose anything other than sin on the basis of man's - you guessed it - total depravity.

It's not to say that man doesn't choose, just that he will choose sin every time when left to his own will..

There are stages to coming to God, what Catholics call ordo salutis, which means "order of salvation". And every Christian believes that there is an order spelled out in the Bible...to the reformed, election comes first (through Gods will alone) then God works and acts to bring that about.

Reformed believe that election is unconditional, meaning that it's not based in anything that God sees in us, which makes us worthy of his choosing us.

The most common objection to this thought process is that it prevents voluntary choice, and denies the need for Gospel invitation.

The above is an untrue stance -we believe we voluntarily choose, and we absolutely believe Gospel invitation is necessary.

what we believe is that our choices are free, but that God works sovereignly through our desires so that he guarantees that our choices come about as He has ordained, but this can still be understood as a real choice because God has created us and He ordains that such a choice is real. In short, we can say that God causes us to choose Christ voluntarily.

The mistaken assumption underlying this objection is that a choice must be absolutely free (libertarian freewill) (That is not in any way caused or influenced by God) in order for it to remain a genuine human choice, and we disagree with that.

We believe God can work in us and through us and it still be our voluntary choice.

Click to expand...

I see, thank you for that. Really. So, the Reformed position would be that even our apparent longing for God or for Truth prior to conversion to Christ is wholly God acting in us, and not our own selves or wills longing for God?

Ah, the MISREPRESENTATION card, played over and over and over again...

It's like the only way to avoid MISREPRESENTING Calvinism is to AGREE with it.

But Calvinists themselves do not agree on what it or Reformed Theology actually is.

Some Calvinists claim men do not have Free Will, so how could violence be done to something non-existent? Westminster Confession obviously proposes that WILLS exist, that they are "done no violence to" - and that is why I use the term CALVINIST DOUBLESPEAK.

Fine if all Calvinists don't agree on everything, 5-point, 4-point, 3-point... Arminianism don't agree on all things.

But from where I sit, the only thing all Calvinists agree on is that all non-Calvinists MISREPRESENT Calvinism.

His student said:

Actually it isn't hyperbole at all. The scriptures are clear that everything was created by His Word, for His Word, and in His Word all things exist. They couldn't be more clear on that.

Click to expand...

The words were not speaking of all of creation but of all of the things that Jesus did during his ministry.

The details could easily fit in the world were they all written down. The reason John used hyperbole here was to make a point about how numerous and amazing were the signs and wonders he did. And of course the Holy Spirit guided him to do that. New Testament authors used hyperbole all the time. Jesus himself used hyperbole.

"You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

Hyperbole is a figure of speech that the Bible uses, and the end of John is definitely n example of it. The "although I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." passage could be another one, but all those things could conceivably be done.

His student said:

The GOD I "have there" is not small at all. He is the God who creates and brings to pass everything that occurs in His creation by His Word, for His Word, and in Who's Word all things exist.

Click to expand...

"They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."
Jeremiah 19:5

Perhaps you should take God at his word.

Al Touthentop said:

Which was 2000 years ago on the cross. If you're still waiting for that grace, then you must not believe it was delivered in the first place. Sounds a lot like dispensationalism. We're still waiting for the Messiah to come.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you mean by this. Preveniant grace is the grace that God sends to enlighten every man enough to seek and find him. Not sure what the timing of the crucifixion has to do with that. People were saved by responding to God before the crucifixion.

Al Touthentop said:

I provided the exactly the context you are complaining I left out, which says exactly what you are asserting here. Maybe you need to re-read it.

Click to expand...

• IF the whole world were saved Jesus would not have said what he said in Matthew 7:21-23. think dude think. use that head for something other than a hat rack, brother,.

Al Touthentop said:

God says that the person who obeys him and keeps his commandments is saved.

Click to expand...

but nothing in that says you can obey the command. You are adding to the bible what isnt there.


There is NOT ONE COMMAND IN ALL OF THE WORLD that contains within it your natural moral ability to obey it. Stop assuming you have something you dont have as a lost one. God's grace is needed to obey his commands

BNR32FAN said:

It seems that reformed advocates have some of the puzzle put together but can’t seem to fit all the pieces together to get the full picture. That’s probably because reformed theology wasn’t formulated until 1500 years after the church was established. Did ya really think that everyone had it wrong for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

Click to expand...

and yet it was taught before 325 ad in the chruch.

Tra Phull said:

The Worstminster Confusion can try to put forth the double-speak that it does, but violence is indeed done to the will of the creatures by Reformed Theology.

Reformed theology claims that God predestined some for examination with no regard for their deeds, choices, beliefs or even their EXISTENCE.

Click to expand...

And Romans 9:22 backs that up. Some vessels were prepared (PREDESTINED) for eternal ruin and the other are v vessels of his mercy. Notice the God is patient toward the vessels of his wrath so the vessels of his mercy obtain it. IN other words, God is patient with sinful mankind long enough so that all he intends to save are saved. The same is said God patience toward the elect the elect in 2 Peter 3:9

If youweren

Tra Phull said:

The Worstminster Confusion can try to put forth the double-speak that it does, but violence is indeed done to the will of the creatures by Reformed Theology.

Reformed theology claims that God predestined some for examination with no regard for their deeds, choices, beliefs or even their EXISTENCE.

Click to expand...

If you weren't so childish you would have no need to make a mockery out of what you dont understand.

Perhaps I am not posting for or to the hard-core Calvinists who call me "childish", but rather than to others reading this thread. It is good for them to see you calling me CHILDISH.

It is only your OPINION that I am making a mockery of anything, it is only your OPINION about what I do or don't understand.

What I'd like to know is this.

If I understand reformed theology correctly, the people who are predestined to obey the gospel have no real control over this. You are picked beforehand and Romans is often cited in support of this.

"You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

Now, Paul isn't saying here what is often taught, that God makes some men for honor and others for dishonor from before the world began. He is pointing out that the creator of all the vessels cannot be blamed when one of those vessels ends up being used for dishonor. They were all made for honor. Some end up in dishonor.

The key is his rhetorical question, "For who has resisted his will?" It's being asked tongue in cheek. The answer to the question is 'EVERYONE!' as should be self-evident from the rest of his sermon. Unless you re-define sin as God caused, you have to conclude that man sins of his own accord and not God's direction. He is actually arguing against the idea that God predestined certain people to disobey.

Consider though the case of Cornelius. If A man can't be saved until God first works in him and causes him to believe, why would it be necessary for God to have sent Peter to him to preach the gospel? Here was a man that was already heard by God.

"So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter. 6 He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He will tell you what you must do.”

Kinda weird that this God who saves us first, which then enables us to obey, would communicate this idea in such an incomprehensible way were this the idea he wanted anyone to understand. He even uses, through his angel, that anathema to Reformed thinking, a statement letting Cornelius know that he will be receiving commands from Peter!

One thing we can safely assume about Cornelius is that he was not a sinner. (Wait wut?)

Psalms 66:18
If I regard iniquity in my heart,
The Lord will not hear.

John 9:31
"That is remarkable indeed!” the man said. “You do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners, but He does listen to the one who worships Him and does His will."

This blind man was more understanding of Old Testament scriptures than the Pharisees grilling him. At any rate, God tells Cornelius that he hears his prayers. Thus, he can't be a sinner, something that Reformed theology would posit is not possible.

In spite of this Peter goes to Cornelius. And what does Cornelius charge him?

"So I sent to you immediately, and you have done well to come. Now therefore, we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God.”

How odd. If God does all the work, and it is impossible to obey unless you are first elected, what IS all this preaching of words and commands and learning of what one must do?

Of what necessity would be preaching and admonishing and doing of things which really do not have any effect?

The logic of it makes no sense and I am not the sort of person who thinks that God created logic and knowledge for us to simply pass over these sorts of questions, lending credulity to the person who claims God is partial and arbitrary and requires no obedience to obtain the gift of salvation. It goes against everything God taught us in the Old Testament and everything Jesus taught while he walked the earth.

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things I tell you to do?"

Doesn't that sound to you like God expects us to chose and do what he has asked?

So why was it even necessary to preach the gospel? If you can't obey unless your're elect, and there is no requirement to do anything to receive salvation, why is the New Testament so apparently opposed to the idea of doing nothing? Was the gospel written to confuse us and those who never got reformed theology until Luther started the ball rolling? Doesn't that seem a bit mean on God's part? Or was it his "sovereignty" that allowed every Christian until 1537 or so to be preached error (by the apostles themselves!)