Why are so many against reformed Theology…

[BBAS 64]

So it was PREDESTINED by God that I NOT believe in Calvinism?

It has definitely happened.

Good Day, Tra

As I told my KJO Baptist pastor... God is not done with you yet.

In Him,

Bill

 

[1Reformedman]

It also doesn't say that I can eat an entire rutabaga. If one is commanded something, then you are suggesting that what I need to do is look for the place where it says that command can be obeyed in the first place. What sort of God goes through all the trouble of putting his word on parchments and then expects me to interpret it through such a strange lens? If God commands it, why would I not assume that it is possible for me to obey it?

Was it possible for Abraham to go to a land that God commanded him to go see?

Was it possible for Noah to build an ark?

Perhaps you can give me the scriptural lens through which I look to assume otherwise.



God's commands ARE grace. They are GIVEN. Grace is not magic dust. You keep repeating this idea that we can't obey commands, but provide no scripture to explain it. Help me out here. Where do I find this idea in scripture?

Why do you keep running from the question I posed? Why wont you answer it? Show me in the command I gave you that you the natural moral ability to build an atom bomb just because I commanded you to do so.

 

[bling]

God never does anything without a reason. IF he did then yes he would be arbitrary. But God isnt arbitrary in anything he does. Jeremiah 29:11-13 debunks that idea. The problem seems to be that some just can't trust God for what he says in his word. It seems they need to be able to decipher something he may not want us to know right now. Instead of having to know how God does things and why has Ever occurred to you why we look through a glass darkly now but then face to face? God does not have to explain every detail as to what he does or how he does it and because his thoughts are higher than ours and we cant understand some of them right now.

This does not address anything I said. Yes! God is not arbitrary! If it is not arbitrary than there is a reason for you over others and even not knowing the reason you can boast for having the unknown reason. If you read my post you can see the reason and why you can't "boast" over being given undeserved pure sacrificial charity, like a true bagger can't boast about being given an undeserved gift of money.

 

[Al Touthentop]

In general, re Ephesians 2, everyone ? Everyone once was under the prince of the power of the air, with all the sons of disobedience worldwide (all people before a few are redeemed, thus becoming, a few, sons of God) . i.e. all readers, all viewers, all posters, everyone everywhere, except the redeemed of the Lord ?

Ding ding ding!

It's hyperbole and yes the answer is everyone. I have studied with Calvinists and their answer is generally "no one" because of their belief that Paul is trying to teach that men have no free will.

Clearly though we have many examples of men who did God's will though the vast majority resisted God's will at some point or another. He was being ironic there. It can be a missed point. He's pointing out the absurdity of blaming God for the evil that men do. He created all of the "vessels," all which have the ability to either honor or dishonor God.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Why do you keep running from the question I posed? Why wont you answer it? Show me in the command I gave you that you the natural moral ability to build an atom bomb just because I commanded you to do so.

I'm not running from the question. "In the command" is a very tight restriction. The assumption that you make isn't in my notice. I assume that a command given by God wouldn't be given if he didn't think I could obey it. You are the one who wants me to put on the "do I have any moral ability" glasses with which to view a command of God. So I want you to show me in scripture where that construct exists. Why are you running from showing me that in scripture?

 

[redleghunter]

So who was Adam in bondage to? No Free Will equals no just punishment for wrongdoing. Does God punish us for what he ordained us to do?

You realize we are all children of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Good Day, Al

First let's get a good working definition of the word election:

Thayers:

1) the act of picking out, choosing

1a) of the act of God’s free will by which before the foundation of the world he decreed his blessings to certain persons

Strongs:

ek-log-ay'

From G1586; (divine) selection (abstractly or concretely): - chosen, election.


EZE: 36 I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you, and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh, and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.


I will… God makes a choice to do He alone is the “verb” doer. What does he choose to do cleanse, give, remove, put in…. what or whom is the passive object of his doing that would be you, he chose to do it to the “you” not everyone but “you”.

Are you sure that's not a plural pronoun there? Because I am pretty sure it is. If it isn't then he was talking to a single person and I wasn't there.

What are the direct effects of this doing that God has chosen to do and purposed to do what does he “cause” by doing? Walk in his statutes and carefully obey His rules.

God choice in election serves His purpose, which he acts upon to cause direct results, and he cannot fail. He alone is the sufficient, primary, and only cause in our salvation (you shall be my people) and obedience.

I see what you are saying. This could possibly be read as though God was causing the obedience. The problem with that is the entire rest of the bible. It also means that I, as a Christian, can blame God when I disobey. In fact everyone can. Only those who God causes to obey are his elect then. Since he is the one causing all of this obeying, a person's disobedience is "his will."

What I would suggest is that if this is the conclusion one has to draw from the premise, then it is the premise that is faulty. It would be fair also to conclude that God can't therefore be a just God, since he plans to burn up everyone who was disobedient to him, and it was him who caused the disobedience in the first place. We can't even obey apparently unless he makes it happen.

Romans: 9 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls she was told, The older will serve the younger.”


Being not yet born neither doing good or bad... would you agree obey is "good" thing to do and "Bad" is therefore disobeying? Gods purpose of/ for election is not dependent on those types of things works, but the “because” is God himself who always does that which is good. Gods choosing is always a just and good thing as it serves His purpose, He is gloried in everything he does.

But he's not talking about Sarah's obedience or disobedience. He's talking about Jacob and Esau. What he's saying is that God chose, before either of the children were born, before either children sinned (and this also tells us that children are not born sinners). So Jacob was not chosen to be the father of the nation of Israel because of his goodness or badness prior to his birth and Esau wasn't left off because he was good or bad. Neither had been born. He chose because he knew what Jacob would do, not because he was going to cause Esau to do anything. In fact Esau was not an unrighteous man as far as we can tell.

So you seem to assert that His doing is a result of our doing.. we are the primary cause for God to choose and do. Can you cite that and then exegete the text(s).

I only seem to be saying that if you reject the idea that a person can obey God's commands and that he expects us to obey.

If I am an employer, and I make the criteria for employment known and then because of my foreknowledge, that some applicants will qualify, I build an office where they will work, I haven't predestined the individuals who will get jobs, but I have predestined the interview questions, the criteria and the place they will do this work. This without their knowledge or participation until I call them to interview.

Those who qualify are the "elect" whom I employ.

That's the concept being taught in the Bible.

 

[1Reformedman]

What do you think is the answer that Paul had in mind to the question: "For who has resisted the will of God?"

Its a rhetorical question first and foremost. Secondly, you misquoted it. The verse actually states:
Romans 9:18 "Will you say to me then, "why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" which is predicated by the context where this verse is found which is about predestination. You have to go further back in the text to see what Paul's line of thinking is and it is clearly about God's predestination. In this chapter, Paul shows us that God created two types of vessels. Some for his wrath and some for his mercy. He says this in verse 22 but he shows these things before he actually says it. Pharaoh's predestination as Pharoah wherein God shows Pharoah is a vessel of his wrath. A vessel he raised up to be that vessel of wrath. God appointed him a Pharaoh and via pharaoh's actions he received God's justice (his wrath aka the plagues) for his treatment of God's chosen people. The elder served the younger(Esau/Jacob). God has mercy upon whom he has mercy and justice (what compassion actually means in this context) upon whom he has justice. He has mercy on whom he has mercy and he hardens whom he hardens. But let's go back and look.

Read this link before going further as it describes the context IN DETAIL prior to the verse in question:

The Argument of Romans 9:14-16 | Monergism


Now let's look at verse 19 with John Gill's Commentary
Thou wilt say then unto me,....
That is, thou wilt object to me; for this is another objection of the adversary, against the doctrine the apostle was advancing: and it is an objection of a mere natural man, of one given up to a reprobate mind, of an insolent hardened sinner; it discovers the enmity of the carnal mind to God; if is one of the high things that exalts itself against the knowledge of him; it is with a witness a stretching out of the hand against God, and strengthening a man's self against the Almighty; it is a running upon him, even upon the thick bosses of his bucklers; it carries in it the marks of ill nature, surliness, and rudeness, to the last degree:

why doth he yet find fault?
The objector does not think fit to name the name of "God", or "the Lord", but calls him "he"; and a considerable emphasis lies upon the word "yet": what as if he should say, is he not content with the injustice he has already exercised, in passing by some, when he chose others; in leaving them to themselves, and hardening their hearts against him, and to go on in their own ways, which must unavoidably end in destruction; but after all this, is angry with them, finds fault with them, blames, accuses, and condemns them, for that which they cannot help; nay, for that which he himself wills? this is downright cruelty and tyranny. The objector seems to have a particular regard to the case of Pharaoh, the apostle had instanced in, when after God had declared that he had raised him up for this very purpose, to make known his power, and show forth his glory in all the world, still finds fault with him and says, "as yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go?" Exodus 9:17; and yet he himself had hardened his heart, and continued to harden his heart, that he might not let them go as yet; and when he had let them go, hardened his heart again to pursue after them, when he drowned him and his host in the Red sea; all which in this objection, is represented as unparalleled cruelty and unmercifulness; though it is not restrained to this particular case, but is designed to be applied to all other hardened persons; and to expose the unreasonableness of the divine proceedings, in hardening men at his pleasure; and then blaming them for acting as hardened ones, when he himself has made them so, and wills they should act in this manner:

for who hath resisted his will?
This is said in support of the former, and means not God's will of command, which is always resisted by inability more or less, by wicked men and devils; but his will of purpose, his counsels and decrees, which stand firm and sure, and can never be resisted, so as to be frustrated and made void. This the objector takes up, and improves against God; that since he hardens whom he will, and there is no resisting his will, the fault then can never lie in those who are hardened, and who act as such, but the claim to fault is squarely on God; and therefore it must be unreasonable in Him to be angry with, blame, accuse, and condemn persons for being and doing that, which he himself wills them to be and do. Let the disputers of this world, the reasoners of the present age, come and see their own faces, and read the whole strength of their objections, in this wicked man's; and from whence we may be assured, that since the objections are the same, the doctrine must be the same that is objected to: and this we gain however by it, that the doctrines of particular and personal election and reprobation, were the doctrines of the apostle; since against no other, with any face, or under any pretense, could such an objection be formed: next follows the apostle's answer.

20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

Predestination is all throughout that chapter. In fact from about Romans 8:28 to the last verse in chapter 11 is about God's elect. The reality is Predestination is found all throughout the bible.

 

[1Reformedman]

I'm not running from the question. "In the command" is a very tight restriction. The assumption that you make isn't in my notice. I assume that a command given by God wouldn't be given if he didn't think I could obey it. You are the one who wants me to put on the "do I have any moral ability" glasses with which to view a command of God. So I want you to show me in scripture where that construct exists. Why are you running from showing me that in scripture?

All commands are very tight restriction because the issue demand, a specific demand. YOU ASSUME that God would not give you a command you couldn't obey because you have a presupposition about God that is not found in scripture THAT IS WHERE YOU FALTER. The bible is filled with God's predestination of the elect no matter how much you want to kick against the pricks

 

[1Reformedman]

All commands are very tight restriction because the issue demand, a specific demand. YOU ASSUME that God would not give you a command you couldn't obey because you have a presupposition about God that is not found in scripture THAT IS WHERE YOU FALTER. The bible is filled with God's predestination of the elect no matter how much you want to kick against the pricks

typo...because they issue demand,

 

[BobRyan]

"Although God controls by divine decree and sovereign power everything that goes on in the world according to His own purposes, that does not remove one iota of culpability from those who do evil. Evildoers do evil not because they are forced to, but by their own evil intent. So God will judge them for both the act and the motive, as well as for their failure to give Him glory and to worship Him."

What Is the Relationship Between Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility?

God sovereignly decreed free will. He is absolutely in control of whether or not that exists and He chose that it would.

Hence.

1. The fall of Lucifer was possible.
2. The fall of 1/3 of the sinless angels was possible.
3. The fall of sinless Adam and Eve was possible
4. The entire world gone corrupt and destroyed in a world wide flood - was possible.
5. The Chosen nation of Israel rejected their Messiah -- yeah.. that was possible.

"He came to His OWN and His own received Him not" John 1:11
"God is not WILLING for any to perish" 2 Peter 3
"How often I wanted to spare your children... but you would not" Matt 23
"what more could I do that I have not already done?" Isaiah 5:4
"you stand only by your faith .. you should fear for if He did not spare them He may not spare you either" Romans 11
"I forgave you ALL that debt..." Matthew 18 -- followed by "forgiveness revoked" and full debt returned

 

[Albion]

And now for all the verses that support predestination...

Bob.

Bob?

 

[1Reformedman]

This does not address anything I said. Yes! God is not arbitrary! If it is not arbitrary than there is a reason for you over others and even not knowing the reason you can boast for having the unknown reason. If you read my post you can see the reason and why you can't "boast" over being given undeserved pure sacrificial charity, like a true bagger can't boast about being given an undeserved gift of money.

I do not believe that you understand reformed theology as well as you think you do. The majority of Reformed believers do not boast that we are of the elect. We give God ALL OF THE GLORY for his choosing us to be of the elect. It would be very arrogant to boast about having been freely given something you don't deserve to be given. Anyone you see who does as you suggest is either not a true reformed believer or is a very immature reformed believer who does not have a good grasp on the absolute sovereignty and mercy of God or is just arrogant. Nor does that individual understand that we are not to boast in self but ONLY in the Lord. I am not saying some don't do such things but this would be the exception, not the normal thing you'd hear from a reformed believer.

You keep adding "you can boast" as if that is what all reformed believers do. I can see arrogance in the idea that one boasts when he says I chose by my free will to believe in Jesus. One could boast about that as well. So I'm no sure you are actually thinking this through.

 

[Al Touthentop]

All commands are very tight restriction because the issue demand, a specific demand. YOU ASSUME that God would not give you a command you couldn't obey because you have a presupposition about God that is not found in scripture THAT IS WHERE YOU FALTER. The bible is filled with God's predestination of the elect no matter how much you want to kick against the pricks

So then show me in the scripture where I am faltering. What's so hard about that? Predestination of the elect is not God causing individuals to become robots. That's where YOU falter. This theory, that one can't obey a command of God, must be in the scripture somewhere if indeed it exists.

 

[His student]

"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.

Perhaps you should.

"For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and by him all things consist."

"All things" includes the alters and fires of Baal.

Do you really want to take that verse from Jeremiah out of context and deny the omniscience of God?

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.

1 John 3:20 in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.

Psalm 139:4 Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.

Jeremiah 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

Do you really think that verse tells us that the God of infinite knowledge is really the god of finite knowledge?

Do you really think that that verse tells us that the God who numbers the hairs on the heads of sacrificed children and fills Heaven and earth was not aware of what sins would be committed in Israel some 6 centuries before Christ died for those sins?

And do you really feel that you need to deny the omniscience of God just to beat your straw man claim that when Reformed theologians say that God decrees that sin takes place in His creation they have to be saying that He is the author of those sins and that He takes away free will and forces men to commit those sins?

 

[His student]

God? God is a title. Who is Him? Who is God the Father?
Revelation 10:v.7 says: 7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the MYSTERY of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. What kind of MYSTERY of God is this? Will be we have only heard to speak of Him, but we know not who really is He or the MYSTERY of Him to be known only now ?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Its a rhetorical question first and foremost. Secondly, you misquoted it. The verse actually states:
Romans 9:18 "Will you say to me then, "why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" which is predicated by the context where this verse is found which is about predestination. You have to go further back in the text to see what Paul's line of thinking is and it is clearly about God's predestination. In this chapter, Paul shows us that God created two types of vessels. Some for his wrath and some for his mercy.

And then he makes clear that it is inappropriate for us to claim that they were made for dishonor in the first place. The conclusion, that he intentionally made vessels for dishonor is MOCKED, it isn't supported.

He says this in verse 22 but he shows these things before he actually says it. Pharaoh's predestination as Pharoah wherein God shows Pharoah is a vessel of his wrath. A vessel he raised up to be that vessel of wrath. God appointed him a Pharaoh and via pharaoh's actions he received God's justice (his wrath aka the plagues) for his treatment of God's chosen people.

Pharaoh could have succumbed to God. And God's plans would STILL have been accomplished. That Pharaoh was "hardened" was a result of his own resistance to God's will, not because of it. It wasn't God's intention to harden Pharaoh's heart but the fact that Pharaoh disobeyed didn't cause any of God's plans to fail. It was the word that hardened Pharaoh's heart. Pharaoh chose to harden his heart. Had he not hardened his heart, God would still have accomplished his goal and shown his glory.

The elder served the younger(Esau/Jacob). God has mercy upon whom he has mercy and justice (what compassion actually means in this context) upon whom he has justice. He has mercy on whom he has mercy and he hardens whom he hardens. But let's go back and look.

Which isn't about mercy as he explained already. Before either child had done any good or bad, he selected one for his purpose. That he selected one wasn't an indication he thought the other was bad.

I'm not going to study commentary as if it is the text. That is your problem.

Predestination is all throughout that chapter. In fact from about Romans 8:28 to the last verse in chapter 11 is about God's elect. The reality is Predestination is found all throughout the bible.

The problem is, it is not what you think it means. You're taking one passage and using it to negate the rest of the Bible's passages on God's creation of "vessels" who had free will and were expected to obey his commands. You can't do that and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Perhaps you should.

"For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and by him all things consist."

"All things" includes the alters and fires of Baal.

If that's true, how is it possible that God could complain about it? The passage you quote however says no such thing. When he created the earth, he did not create altars to false idols. Men did that later. It's funny that you complain about straw man arguments when you yourself are asserting that God created all of the tools of disobedience, including the false god's idols and altars.

If God is the author of obedience, he must also be the author of disobedience. That's Reformed theology logic. Why complain when people take note of that?

 

[His student]

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.”

Do you deny that Jesus Christ was before all things, all things were created by Him and for Him and by Him all things consist?

That's obviously the point I was making.

The Word of God is the vehicle used by God to bring to pass everything He sends Him forth to accomplish.

All this talk of the Lord using hyperbole is nothing but your avoiding that fact.

 

[His student]

If that's true, how is it possible that God could complain about it? The passage you quote however says no such thing. When he created the earth, he did not create altars to false idols. Men did that later. It's funny that you complain about straw man arguments when you yourself are asserting that God created all of the tools of disobedience, including the false god's idols and altars.

If God is the author of obedience, he must also be the author of disobedience. That's Reformed theology logic. Why complain when people take note of that?

It is true. God said it and I believe it. You should as well.

God does disapprove of the sins He has decreed to actually take place from the choices made by men and angels - from the rebellion of Satan in an age long past to the final rebellion at the end of this earth.

Reformed theology says very clearly that, whatever they mean by His decreeing that all things that happen take place, they are not saying that God is the author of sin or forces men to sin.

No one said that false alters and false idols were created by God when He created the earth.

But it does say that He knew full well from eternity past that they would be created by men and that He holds them together just as He does the men who create them.

In Him we live and move and have our being.

Sure it's a mystery. But you need to build your theology to include mysteries like that. That is what the Reformers did.

They did not have the luxury used by would be theologians on the internet of setting certain doctrines aside for a time while they are discussing other doctrines. They did not dare to do so knowing that they would face a more strict judgment for setting themselves up as teachers of God's people.

Their teachings had to include the entire council of God. That's why the Westminster Confession of Faith, for instance, took so many years of prayer, study, and debate to complete and finally publish. That's why they ended up stating things that to some may seem contradictory like:

"God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

You and others here are free of course to state these mysteries in different words than those used by the Reformers. Just be sure that you touch on every concept from the Word of God that is pertinent to the discussion and do so in pithy statements that can be used in catechisms for students of the Word.