Why are so many against reformed theology?

[BBAS 64]

Why are so many against reformed theology?


Stephen Lawson, RC Sproul and MacArthur answer the question. They all answer from their own perspective.

 

[FenderTL5]

Why are so many against reformed theology?
Stephen Lawson, RC Sproul and MacArthur answer the question. They all answer from their own perspective.

I watched the video, rewound to a few sections and made some notes.
I'm only familiar with one of the panelists (MacArthur). It was an interesting watch.
Did you have a particular direction you want this discussion to go?

 

[BBAS 64]

I watched the video, rewound to a few sections and made some notes.
I'm only familiar with one of the panelists (MacArthur). It was an interesting watch.
Did you have a particular direction you want this discussion to go?

Good day, Fender

Not at all.....

I know the question "Why are so many against reformed theology?" is often asked by those who hold to it and sometimes those who do not hold to it use the question in a way to suggest that it is not valid ( an appeal to a majority).

In Him,

Bill

 

[FenderTL5]

Good day, Fender

Not at all.....

I know the question "Why are so many against reformed theology?" is often asked by those who hold to it and sometimes those who do not hold to it use the question in a way to suggest that it is not valid ( an appeal to a majority).

In Him,

Bill

Again, interesting.
Did you not recognize the panelists own 'appeal to the majority' in the discussion? ("..all of their confessions and creeds.. was the overwhelming majority.." 11:15 to 11:40 ish)
There was a simultanous appeal to history that began at about 11 minutes in and runs through the comment just after 13 minutes ("..we must go back to old paths, if it's new it's not true.." 13:30).

 

[BBAS 64]

Again, interesting.
Did you not recognize the panelists own 'appeal to the majority' in the discussion? ("..all of their confessions and creeds.. was the overwhelming majority.." 11:15 to 11:40 ish)
There was a simultanous appeal to history that began at about 11 minutes in and runs through the comment just after 13 minutes ("..we must go back to old paths, if it's new it's not true.." 13:30).

Oh yes I do....

 

[bling]

Why are so many against reformed theology?


Stephen Lawson, RC Sproul and MacArthur answer the question. They all answer from their own perspective.

You ask the question: “Why are so many against reformed theology?”

These three preachers set up some strawman “theology” and act like that is what they are fighting against.

They also act as if Western Christian people is where everything is happening, while much more is happening in: China, India, Africa, N. Korea, the Middle East and even South America which is where the Church is growing and they are not centers of Calvinism.

Yes! Our view of God would not allow God to arbitrarily decide to make people He will just destine for hell, but that is not our miss understanding of God, but suggesting such a thing would be possible for God to do. I do think people have done a poor job explaining God’s Love, foreknowledge, predestine and Power. If the God was like the strawman’s God, they say their opposition believed in then both are wrong.

They do not understand Ro. 9, God’s Love, man’s objective, foreknowledge, and what God cannot do.

People just do not want to take the time to really learn the truth, so we listen to information bites and choose what we like at the time.

We tend to follow “people” and do not search out the truth for ourselves.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Sproul nailed it. It's the part of the doctrine that says God created the majority of humankind for the soul purpose of having them all experience eternal torment. And if you're not one of the elect, you have absolutely no hope of salvation whatsoever. Which really seems to toss free will and choice right out the window, because there is no choice in the matter at all. Either you were elected before you were born or you weren't and there's nothing you can do to change it.

 

[FenderTL5]

Sproul nailed it. It's the part of the doctrine that says God created the majority of humankind for the soul purpose of having them all experience eternal torment. And if you're not one of the elect, you have absolutely no hope of salvation whatsoever. Which really seems to toss free will and choice right out the window, because there is no choice in the matter at all. Either you were elected before you were born or you weren't and there's nothing you can do to change it.

Q: You think Sproul ( Googled Sproul to find out which one you're referring to), nailed the point of opposition (only)?
Or do you agree with Sproul and Reformed Theology in general?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Q: You think Sproul ( Googled Sproul to find out which one you're referring to), nailed the point of opposition (only)?

What do you mean by only?

Or do you agree with Sproul and Reformed Theology in general?

I have my doubts regarding reformed theology / calvinism. MacArthur goes as far as saying going against Calvinism is going against God, if I understood him right, which I brought up a couple of years ago.

Does going against John Calvin mean going against God?

In this video John MacArthur reads objections to Calvinism's doctrine of predestination, and says the comments go against the sovereignty of God. It sounded more to me that the comments went against John Cavin's doctrine. Or should both considered one and the same?

www.christianforums.com

 

[FenderTL5]

What do you mean by only?

What I meant was; You said "Sproul nailed it."
What did Sproul "nail"?
Was it the opposition to Reformed Theology or something more? Is the point of opposition the only part he "nailed" or do you agree wit Sproul throughout the video?

 

[Ceallaigh]

What I meant was; You said "Sproul nailed it."
What did Sproul "nail"?
Was it the opposition to Reformed Theology or something more? Is the point of opposition the only part he "nailed" or do you agree wit Sproul throughout the video?

I was pretty clear in my first post. I'm not sure if I can explain what I mean any better than that.

 

[FenderTL5]

I was pretty clear in my first post. I'm not sure if I can explain what I mean any better than that.

The longer explanation, that you edited out, was clearer.
Your first post could be coming from one of agreement with Reformed Theology or not. The clarfication was for me and my potential repsonse, it was not meant to be argumentaive.
I readily admit that my views are not majority, certainly not even mainstream within Protestant influence, so I like to know who/what I'm addressing before saying something I could regret (again).
I'm in no way saying that you are wrong -you are probably correct that is the majority opposition.

My personal opinion is that they tend to pull up short even within that point.It's not merely that there is no choice and free will is abandoned - but that we will be judged based on our choices and deeds done in this life - of which, according to Calvin, are immaterial. Only 'election' is germane.

 

[PloverWing]

The premise stated by the questioner at the beginning, that Reformed Theology is in the minority, is odd to me. Reformed Theology is probably in the minority worldwide, given the large numbers of Catholic and Orthodox Christians, but Reformed Christianity has had a tremendous influence on Christianity here in the US.

As to the responses: Lawson and MacArthur didn't address the question in any substantial way. Lawson's claim that people who disagree with him don't know the Bible and are rebelling against the truth is insulting and unhelpful. Sproul's answer is by far the most accurate one (not surprising, as he is the most well-respected theologian of the three): the doctrine of reprobation "puts a shadow on the integrity of God".

If the question in the title is a question for us here in CF, then here are my chief reservations about the Reformed tradition:
1) The doctrine of reprobation does indeed call into question the goodness of God.
2) Worship in most churches in the Reformed tradition is not liturgical, celebration of the Eucharist is infrequent, and the sacraments overall seem to be downplayed in this tradition. I think much is lost when these aspects of worship are set aside.

And now I will add two follow-up observations about these reservations:
1') The Problem of Evil is a tough philosophical question. I don't like the Reformed answer, but I don't have a better answer to offer. We're all making imperfect guesses here.
2') I am aware that there are Christians who don't thrive in a liturgical setting, who don't feel a need for frequent Communion, and for whom listening quietly to a sermon can be an act of worship. That's not me, but I am glad that there are churches that offer a place for them.

 

[BobRyan]

Why are so many against reformed theology?


Stephen Lawson, RC Sproul and MacArthur answer the question. They all answer from their own perspective.

It is not just Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox groups that reject Calvinism, it is also Methodists, many Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists etc.

Sproul's argument seems to be as follows:
1. You have the free will to be as depraved as you want to be -- your free will cannot choose to accept the Gospel.
2. For God it is indeed loving to zap some but not others into accepting the Gospel - because that is just how sovereign and high up God is.

Calvinism seems to reject the idea that "our soverign God IS sovereign ENOUGH to choose free will for mankind and to back that up with the "supernatural drawing of all mankind unto Himself" (John 12:32) " even though Christ claims to do that very thing as an act of His sovereign will.

In Calvinism the argument seems to be - "if God supernaturally draws someone unto Him then He is not sovereign enough - to do so without overpowering the person's ability to accept or reject the Gospel invitation".


John 1:11 "He came to HIS OWN and His OWN - received Him not"
Matt 23 "How OFTEN I WANTED to spare your children... BUT YOU would not"
Is 5:4 "What more was there to do that I have not done? Why then when I expected good fruit did it produce bad?..."
Rom 2:11 "God is NOT partial" -- He does not choose some and reject others.

2 Peter 3 "God is not willing that ANY should perish - but that ALL should come to repentance " -- yet it is the "many" of Matt 7 that reject the Gospel.

Rom 11: 20 "Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; for otherwise you too will be cut off

1 Cor 9 :
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. (the gospel)
...27 but I strictly discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified from it (the gospel).

 

[Ceallaigh]

My personal opinion is that they tend to pull up short even within that point.It's not merely that there is no choice and free will is abandoned - but that we will be judged based on our choices and deeds done in this life - of which, according to Calvin, are immaterial. Only 'election' is germane.

It seems pretty illogical along those lines.

​

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Why are so many against reformed theology?


Stephen Lawson, RC Sproul and MacArthur answer the question. They all answer from their own perspective.

Why are you asking ? We all know it is a rabbit hole subject. With all due respect, before Calvin came into the picture the Reformation gave us the gift of truth.
Blessings.

 

[Guojing]

Why are so many against reformed theology?


Stephen Lawson, RC Sproul and MacArthur answer the question. They all answer from their own perspective.

TULIP is one reason?

 

[BBAS 64]

It is not just Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox groups that reject Calvinism, it is also Methodists, many Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists etc.

Sproul's argument seems to be
1. You have the free will to be as depraved as you want to be -- your free will cannot choose to accept the Gospel.
2. For God it is indeed loving to zap some but not others into accepting the Gospel - because that is just how sovereign and high up God is.

Calvinism seems to reject the idea that "our soverign God IS sovereign ENOUGH to choose free will for mankind and to back that up with the supernatural drawing of all mankind unto Himself (John 12:32) ".

In Calvinism the argument seems to be - "if God supernaturally draws someone unto Him then He is not sovereign enough - to do so without overpowering the person's ability to accept or reject the Gospel invitation".


John 1:11 "He came to HIS OWN and His OWN - received Him not"
Matt 23 "How OFTEN I WANTED to spare your children... BUT YOU would not"
Is 5:4 "What more was there to do that I have not done? Why then when I expected good fruit did it produce bad?..."
Rom 2:11 "God is NOT partial" -- He does not choose some and reject others.

2 Peter 3 "God is not willing that ANY should perish - but that ALL should come to repentance " -- yet it is the "many" of Matt 7 that reject the Gospel.

Rom 11: 20 "Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; for otherwise you too will be cut off

1 Cor 9 :
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. (the gospel)
...27 but I strictly discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified from it (the gospel).

Good day, Bob

Lots here and would recommend RC's work on willing to believe.

I know that RC has addressed the "zap" mischaracterization the past I will try to find that video.

I hope this will better help you to understand what RC believes and allow you to put the mischaracterization behind you.

Also your qualification of "seems to" can also be set aside. There are plenty of resources that will help you to know what he believes it is ok that you disagree but knowing is always better than "seems".

Reformed theology does not teach that God brings the elect “kicking and screaming, against their wills,” into his kingdom. It teaches that God so works in the hearts of the elect as to make them willing and pleased to come to Christ. They come to Christ because they want to. They want to because God has created in their hearts a desire for Christ. (What Is Reformed Theology? pg 159)

In Him,

Bill

 

[Ceallaigh]

Good day, Bob

Lots here and would recommend RC's work on willing to believe.

I know that RC has addressed the "zap" mischaracterization the past I will try to find that video.

I hope this will better help you to understand what RC believes and allow you to put the mischaracterization behind you.

Also your qualification of "seems to" can also be set aside. There are plenty of resources that will help you to know what he believes it is ok that you disagree but knowing is always better than "seems".

Reformed theology does not teach that God brings the elect “kicking and screaming, against their wills,” into his kingdom. It teaches that God so works in the hearts of the elect as to make them willing and pleased to come to Christ. They come to Christ because they want to. They want to because God has created in their hearts a desire for Christ. (What Is Reformed Theology? pg 159)

If people only come to God because he preselected them to do so, then how can free will exist? It's like saying God programmed people to accept him. So there goes the "God didn't create us to be robots" argument. And of course it's even worse for the majority of humankind who weren't programmed to come to God, and only exist to be tormented for eternity with absolutely no choice whatsoever in the matter. Which is what RC Sproul pointed out.

 

[BBAS 64]

If people only come to God because he preselected them to do so, then how can free will exist? It's like saying God programmed people to accept him. So there goes the "God didn't create us to be robots" argument. And of course it's even worse for the majority of humankind who weren't programmed to come to God, and only exist to be tormented for eternity with absolutely no choice whatsoever in the matter. Which is what RC Sproul pointed out.

Good day,

The crux of the issue is how you define "free-will" and "choice"

The reformed and in my mind biblical view is that a man is created with the ability to choose and does so freely.

The will is free to influence choice, seeing that choices are influenced those choices are not free from influence.

In the same way the will is free, but not free from influence. The question then becomes what influence the will to make the choices it does.

There are reasons why we chose what we do and do not.

Do desires influence the will
Do past experiences influence the will
Do external (out side of our wills influence our wills) things we can and not control
Do expectations influence our will


Consider:

What would cause a person to choose the light he hates over the darkness he loves?

If the will is influenced in any way then it's freedom is restricted, and is only free to some degree.


RC covers some of those issues... as did Luther and Edwards

And also here: Reformed View of Free-will

In Him,

Bill