Why are so many against reformed Theology…

[zoidar]

I hate their description of God. Free will turns God into a bully who threatens hell for not "saying uncle" (jumping through the hoops). And also bribes people to like him with promises of everlasting pleasure.

Actually, I don't know what to say ... what you say sounds so ... misrepresentation...

 

[Hazelelponi]

Ok, that's a strong statement. Still Catholics are your brothers and sisters, right?

From my understanding most Christians who doesn't like reformed faith, doesn't dislike it because of hate, but because it makes them sad.

Probably not the best place..

 

[Dave L]

Actually, I don't know what to say ... what you say sounds so ... misrepresentation...

How can it be otherwise, if that's the case?

 

[zoidar]

Probably not the best place..

... to discuss this?

 

[tdidymas]

I didn't say that there is a law or principle that says God has to love everyone, but this is what I expect from a being that is love.

Fine, but your expectation is not Biblical, since the Bible clearly states that God hates some people.

Again it's not what God is obligated to do, but what I expect from a being that is love. God has the right to save or not to save whoever He chooses, but if God is love, I believe His intention must be the same for every person. What mercy and grace is, is something to be discussed.

The apostle Paul clearly states what God decides in Rom. 9 and other places. I believe what he says, not what you reason in your mind. I'm willing to discuss mercy and grace at any time.

But from reformed theology we know that God is leaving out people. I have a problem with that, even God isn't obligated to love everyone, this is what I expect of a being that is love.

Your problem is with the scripture, because it clearly states God leaves out people from salvation, and justly, since it is their own fault.

We have another problem here in the reformed theology, that we have to make a distinction between God loving people in a natural sense or in an electing sense. I feel it's wrong to make that destinction since God is love.

It may be because you don't understand the distinction between general calling and special calling, common grace and special grace, etc. Example of general calling is when Jesus says "many are called, but few are chosen." Special calling is where all who are called are justified and glorified - Rom. 8. Understanding this is a matter of scriptural familiarity.

I never said nor believe God will love those worthy of salvation, then we would all be dead. My love for God stems from two things, He loved me enough to send His Son to the cross for me, to save me, and that God loves everyone with the same passionate love. How can I not love God?

If God loves the wicked with the same passionate 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 passionate love with which He loves you enough to save you? There is something inconsistent with your conversation. 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.

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

 

[tdidymas]

God loves all...more than I ever could imagine. He loves all the same, and isn't willing that any perish without accepting him.

Let me say the same to you as I said to another:

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

 

[zoidar]

Fine, but your expectation is not Biblical, since the Bible clearly states that God hates some people.

I'm not going to discuss in this thread if my position is Biblical or not, because the thread is not about that. It's about why people are against reformed theology, and I gave my reason.

The apostle Paul clearly states what God decides in Rom. 9 and other places. I believe what he says, not what you reason in your mind. I'm willing to discuss mercy and grace at any time.

I'd be willing to talk about it if you start a thread about it.

Your problem is with the scripture, because it clearly states God leaves out people from salvation, and justly, since it is their own fault.

The thread is not about this.

It may be because you don't understand the distinction between general calling and special calling, common grace and special grace, etc. Example of general calling is when Jesus says "many are called, but few are chosen." Special calling is where all who are called are justified and glorified - Rom. 8. Understanding this is a matter of scriptural familiarity.

Sounds complicated!

If God loves the wicked with the same passionate 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 passionate love with which He loves you enough to save you? There is something inconsistent with your conversation. 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.

I think you see inconsistency because of your theology, but this thread is not about that.

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 thread is about why people are against reformed theology.

 

[JLB777]

I'm not "AGAINST" reformed theology, ans much as I simply know that it's "ONLY" theology, and not God's WORD.

It's a "Theological OPINION" based on its own collection of "Proof texts", and "Fleshed out" academically as a "Systematic" presentation.

There's no question BIBLICALLY, that "Salvation" (Becoming Born again) BEGINS with God "moving first" to draw humans to Christ - REINFORCED BY Romans 9, John 6:44.

However "Reformed Theology" essentially ELIMINATES any human responsibility whatsoever. If one is "Elect" (L), then he has no choice BUT to become a Christian (I), and no choice BUT (P) to persevere until death.

Antithetically, if one is NOT Elect", the're nothing but firewood with no choice whatsoever about anything. It's a nice, clean precise systematic with no "hanging ends". You IS, or you Ain't - period.

THOUSANDS of years ago, before creation, my new Great Grand Daughter, My Grand Daughter, my Daughter, and I were arbitrarily (U) labeled "Elect", or "Firewood", and NONE OF US have any say in the matter. Since I'm a Christian, obviously I won an "E", and became Christian. There's no need to pray for any of the others, since their FATE has already been sealed (L).

I don't know, however, how totally inflexible Father actually is -

Reformed Theology is nothing more than man’s post modern attempt to redefine biblical words and passages in an attempt to water down the Gospel and the doctrine of Christ, reducing it to fairy tale based on fantasy rather than the truth.


“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
John 3:36



Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9



He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 2:4






JLB

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Sounds like he finds fault with reformed theology, not God.

TRUE - I've got no problem with GOD - only with "Theologian's opinions" of Him.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

It's unconditional election and not "arbitrary election". The two are not the same.

And the difference is???

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Calvinism does not teach that it is arbitrary. Calvinism explicitly teaches that it isn't arbitrary.

In addition, there is no reason why it would need to be arbitrary just because there is a belief in Unconditional Election.

SO explain the difference between "Unconditional", and "Arbitrary".

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I would ask that you view God's patience in Romans 9:22 and 2 Peter 3:9. Notice that in Romans 9:22 God is patience with the vessels of his wrath that are predestined for eternal ruin.

All well and good, but patience not with standing, the "Elect" (because of "I") have no choice but to be saved, and persevere, and the NON-Elect have no choice but to BURN. And since the whole thing is "unconditional" ("U") - then God's selection is arbitrary.

 

[Hazelelponi]

All well and good, but patience not with standing, the "Elect" (because of "I") have no choice but to be saved, and persevere, and the NON-Elect have no choice but to BURN. And since the whole thing is "unconditional" ("U") - then God's selection is arbitrary.

The U just means its not conditioned upon the actions of man.

 

[royal priest]

Good Day, All

This Ligonier conference from 2015 in the QA session, attempts to answer this question.

.. “Once you understand the doctrines of grace, It’s like your breathing heavens air”

In Him,

Bill

I have heard many Christians who used to exalt the notion of free will and later came to the realization that Jesus is the savior from beginning to end, confess that pride made them reluctant to give all the credit for their salvation to God.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The U just means its not conditioned upon the actions of man.

Consequently it's an Arbitrary selection as Paul describes in ROmans 9.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Consequently it's an Arbitrary selection as Paul describes in ROmans 9.

as we only see the one side, I don't think we can definitively say "arbitrary" since God does have reasoning we cannot or do not know..

As Paul said, for now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to Face..

We don't know everything... we just know enough.

 

[1Reformedman]

The entire biblical narrative assumes Free Will is real. You have God complaining about man's sin, regretting he created us, and in reformed theology he caused what he is complaining about.

No that is you reading free will into the text. You were taught to do that. God never regretted making us. That is a twist of the OT verse. NO God didn't cause what he is complaining about and you dont know what reformed theology is if you believe that is what it teaches.

 

[tdidymas]

I'm not going to discuss in this thread if my position is Biblical or not, because the thread is not about that. It's about why people are against reformed theology, and I gave my reason.




I'd be willing to talk about it if you start a thread about it.



The thread is not about this.




Sounds complicated!




I think you see inconsistency because of your theology, but this thread is not about that.



This thread is about why people are against reformed theology.

Ok, I see that you don't want to discuss it here, I can go for that. I'm just trying to answer your objections to show you that your objections don't hold water. Human reasoning is ok, but only if it is in alignment with God's reasoning. It's not ok if it is contrary. Furthermore, it is complicated and not understandable to those who trust in their own human reasoning more than they trust in what scripture says (or they are not familiar with the scripture). I didn't understand it either for many years, but came to understand and fully believe as I became familiar with the scripture. It helps to acknowledge that the apostle Paul knows more than I do, and just accept what he says. Even Peter wrote that some of Paul's writing was hard to understand. I started a thread What's Wrong With Reformed Theology/Soteriology? here: What's Wrong With Reformed Theology/Soteriology?
TD

 

[Albion]

Perhaps we have different ideas about what " in charge" means. It certainly does not mean God's will is always done.

No, but it is critical to understanding Reformed theology (our topic). What it means in this case is that Reformed theology accepts that God is God, that that he is the "Almighty" (to use a word that Christians of all denominations use), and that his decisions are his to make. It is common, however, to read hear Christians representing other branches of Christianity say that it wouldn't be fair of God to do (or not to do) X, wouldn't be reasonable, wouldn't be just, etc. etc. to have made some decision or expect something of us...so long as WE, acting from our own little brains, do not approve.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

as we only see the one side, I don't think we can definitively say "arbitrary" since God does have reasoning we cannot or do not know..

As Paul said, for now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to Face..

We don't know everything... we just know enough.

Missing the point - Reformed theology states that the selection is UNCONDITIONAL. You've just stated that that God uses "reasoning that we cannot" - i.e. Election is NOT "Unconditional".

So which is it??