REFORMED THEOLOGY CRITICS - BE CONSISTENT AND DON'T LISTEN TO REFORMED TEACHERS
- Thread starter sparkman
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'm familiar with the WCoF. Your mistake is not understanding the meaning, and then preaching that man decides himself into heaven because of the word "whosoever" tied to "wills." Basically you're preaching the gospel of decisionism. It's a newcomer on the scene and frankly you don't know what you're talking about, or the history of your teaching that is new to the scene as far as Christianity is concerned.
It isn't saying He predestined them to hell, but the implication is He has passed over some in his foreordination, that is, that He predetermined to save some, but not all.
Scripture denies that man is saved via his will; John 1:13, Romans 9:11ff. There is more.
It isn't saying He predestined them to hell, but the implication is He has passed over some in his foreordination, that is, that He predetermined to save some, but not all.
Scripture denies that man is saved via his will; John 1:13, Romans 9:11ff. There is more.
I presented everyone with what Reformed Theology teaches about God's Decrees, one on them being that billions of souls are FOREORDAINED to Hell! Think about it.
BTW I am not new to either Scripture or to Reformed Theology and my posts will bear that out. I know what the Bible teaches and it is DEFINITELY NOT TULIP. Perhaps you should study the Bible more carefully are reject these unbiblical doctrines.
The Westminster Confession of Faith is the authoritative teaching of Reformed churches. All those who are curious should examine it for themselves. Not all their doctrines are false, but their Soteriology comes from Augustine, not from the Bible.
Actually you did, you are implying it with "whosoever wills." I've given you Scripture that shows salvation is not via man's will and that point is quite clear. Your argument, in using the text is that it is by man's will, the context in which you supplied it supports that.
Please spend time in Scripture, not your presupposed decisional regeneration, and look into when it began to enter into the church. I say this because you rarely use Scripture and have skipped right by Scripture that proves your decisionism to be incorrect. Note James 1:18 as well, and 1 Peter 1:1-5ff.
I've already thought of it and addressed it. Obviously you don't know what is intended in the statement yet claim to have been reformed.
Or something.
I don't have a problem with God's justice, you apparently do, and as stated you're being the Romans 9:20 man in your complaint.
Let me be clear: there is no injustice with God in His Sovereign election and predestination. God doesn't stoop to your idea of fairness kind sir, nor to anyone else's: He's God. His Sovereignty in salvation is quite clear in scripture, Exodus 33, Romans 9. You don't happen to like it apparently.
Yes, I've heard it many times how many allege they were "once reformed" but a cursory look and it is seen that they do not understand it and misrepresent the teachings altogether. You are doing so yourself so either you never understood it altogether, or, well, let's just say there is another possibility.
As far as Augustine, I couldn't care less and the argument is simply given to be malicious as if all he said or did was heretical. He held to many solid beliefs and thank God took Pelagius to task. He also held to some errors as all do within Christendom.
BTW I am now reading his confessions. Good stuff.
One more note, I'm not of the WCoF crowd, it's is 1689 LCoF here.
Please spend time in Scripture, not your presupposed decisional regeneration, and look into when it began to enter into the church. I say this because you rarely use Scripture and have skipped right by Scripture that proves your decisionism to be incorrect. Note James 1:18 as well, and 1 Peter 1:1-5ff.
I've already thought of it and addressed it. Obviously you don't know what is intended in the statement yet claim to have been reformed.
Or something.
I don't have a problem with God's justice, you apparently do, and as stated you're being the Romans 9:20 man in your complaint.
Let me be clear: there is no injustice with God in His Sovereign election and predestination. God doesn't stoop to your idea of fairness kind sir, nor to anyone else's: He's God. His Sovereignty in salvation is quite clear in scripture, Exodus 33, Romans 9. You don't happen to like it apparently.
Yes, I've heard it many times how many allege they were "once reformed" but a cursory look and it is seen that they do not understand it and misrepresent the teachings altogether. You are doing so yourself so either you never understood it altogether, or, well, let's just say there is another possibility.
As far as Augustine, I couldn't care less and the argument is simply given to be malicious as if all he said or did was heretical. He held to many solid beliefs and thank God took Pelagius to task. He also held to some errors as all do within Christendom.
BTW I am now reading his confessions. Good stuff.
One more note, I'm not of the WCoF crowd, it's is 1689 LCoF here.
We will deal with this issue separately.
Once again we see a personal attack rather than a reasoned response from Scripture.
Yes. "Or something". Another personal attack by a staunch Calvinist. All other Christians are evidently either (a) ignorant, or (b) incompetent or (c) can't understand plain English!
Yet another personal attack in lieu of proof that TULIP is actually biblical.
Yet another personal attack.
Yet another personal attack to show that when the doctrine cannot be support, then the fault must lie with those who challenge unbiblical doctrines.
You have not proved you case from the Bible but you have definitely proven that (a) you are indoctrinated and will not change regardless of what Bible truth is presented and (b) you believe that hurling insults is a substitute for reasoned argument.
Once again we see a personal attack rather than a reasoned response from Scripture.
Yes. "Or something". Another personal attack by a staunch Calvinist. All other Christians are evidently either (a) ignorant, or (b) incompetent or (c) can't understand plain English!
Yet another personal attack in lieu of proof that TULIP is actually biblical.
Yet another personal attack.
Yet another personal attack to show that when the doctrine cannot be support, then the fault must lie with those who challenge unbiblical doctrines.
You have not proved you case from the Bible but you have definitely proven that (a) you are indoctrinated and will not change regardless of what Bible truth is presented and (b) you believe that hurling insults is a substitute for reasoned argument.
I think my criticism of Calvinism in general are pretty consistent most of my maternal family are either Baptist or reformed protestant so I did get a bit of exposure as a child although I was nominally raised Lutheran which teaches an almost Catholic concept of free will I still was confused in regards to predestination and such as I remember it was often brought up by ministers. My main issue with Calvinism are in general the 5 points but for practical reasons I think the one that stands out to me as most problematic on grounds of logic is double predestination. First to even decide if this is possible we need to define God to make things practical I will quote St. Anselm of Canterbury who served as archbishop of Canterbury between 1093-1109 he defines God as "that which nothing greater can be conceived". He even uses this definition to linguistically prove to his fellow Benedictine monk why God must exist. Philosophers have since battled weather it is a good argument or not but that is beyond the point and I won't get into that the point is he broadens on this definition to mean the being that can't be fully conceived must be all good and all knowing the thing is in the mind of the average lay man it strikes a problem how can God be all perfect and all knowing. Jump forward about 400-500 years John Calvin believes that he biblically solves this problem by eliminating free will all together he comes to the conclusion for God to be all knowing he must also will some people to Hell since he must also know every outcome the thing is he ignores God's perfectly good nature and focusses fully on his all knowing nature which causes God to no longer be God by him no longer being all good. How would he no longer be all good if Calvinism is true one would ask well the answer is simple but not think of it like this you have a friend you have not seen in a very long time but you see him living in an ally on drugs in the projects knowing he did wrong choices you ignore him willing what you perceive him to deserve this is not good in nature this is called fast judgement the fact of the matter is any one in right moral conscience would help the said friend what. So how can predestination be true but we also have free will well in the sense of predestination as explained in the scriptures by St. Paul as well as much later by St. Augustine predestination is explained as meaning God wills the best for everyone but we have the free will to reject this sacred gift essentially the saints are predestinated but the damned are not but even the saints God did not force them to go to heaven they were saved by their own faith and deeds they chose such a holy life. Basically this still leaves the question how could God give us free will be all good and be all knowing and not predestine some to hell basically did God know Adam would eat the fruit the answer I would say is that the mind of God is like the multiverse theory impossible to explain or fully understand God knows every possible outcome he does not will the evil and he gave us this will so that we could chose the good for every evil action basically there was a possibility to do good evil is not a separate force from good but rather in general it is the absence of good.
You were not attacked as you say so put an end to your false accusations and insults.
I have every right to question any person who claims to be reformed and shows fully they do not even understand or represent truly what it teaches.
Now, let's get to the texts you've dismissed that refute your position?
And for the record, your initial post was an all out attack on all reformed brothers and sisters, and that is a fact. That is only one reason I called you out and exposed the fact you do not even understand nor properly represent the reformed position to which you allege to have once held.
You came out with guns blazing, and with false accusations and have been called on it.
I have every right to question any person who claims to be reformed and shows fully they do not even understand or represent truly what it teaches.
Now, let's get to the texts you've dismissed that refute your position?
And for the record, your initial post was an all out attack on all reformed brothers and sisters, and that is a fact. That is only one reason I called you out and exposed the fact you do not even understand nor properly represent the reformed position to which you allege to have once held.
You came out with guns blazing, and with false accusations and have been called on it.
Compatibilism provides the best answer for how God is sovereign over creatures who have a kind of freedom.
https://www.gotquestions.org/compatibilism.html
Confessionally Reformed: Compatibilism Explained | The Reformed Collective
https://www.gotquestions.org/compatibilism.html
Confessionally Reformed: Compatibilism Explained | The Reformed Collective
I remember listening to a hard shell Calvinist who was on the radio out in Calif. He could never be certain that he was saved but he hoped that he was elect so he would be saved. Poor fellow wrote books as to the return of Christ and missed the date at least three times.
No man is a Calvinist before he is saved. All men come before Christ as Armenians but not all are saved. John 3:19-21
Calvinism is not totally wrong nor is it totally correct. It seems to be a stumbling block to many.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
No man is a Calvinist before he is saved. All men come before Christ as Armenians but not all are saved. John 3:19-21
Calvinism is not totally wrong nor is it totally correct. It seems to be a stumbling block to many.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
The biggest stumbling block is Christ and His cross.
"but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles"
1 Cor 1:23
----
But you are right that the predestination is a problem for many people.
"He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
J 6:66
----
Should we care?
"but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles"
1 Cor 1:23
----
But you are right that the predestination is a problem for many people.
"He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them."
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
J 6:66
----
Should we care?
Last edited:
It surprises me how long the thread about works has lasted, and how much discussion there's on it, I guess people like to disagree and talk about these things.
Waldenses, Paulicians, Donatists, Puritans..plus others
Named after key leaders and key principles.. got nicknamed 'Anabaptists'
They have no known human founder but adhered tenatiously to the teachings of the first New Testament churches.
Covered in the likes of the Battle for Baptist History by I.K.Cross.. The Trail of Blood by B.Carroll.. My Church by J.M. Moody.. Churches in the Valley of Piedemont.
The Waldenses being devout christians in biblically sound churches who fled to the mountains.. 'men of the valleys' facing persecution. Their isolation in those mountains allowed them to preserve the truth of the Word.
Christians in mostly biblically sound churches that were around seperate from Catholicism and before the likes of Calvin and Luther, Wesley etc..
Of course, since reformers do try to go sola scriptura.. then there are some shared beliefs from the aforementioned churches and the reformers.. hence why these churches helped the reformers.
But tell me which reformed churches have truly imbraced full immersion baptism.. no infant baptism.. and baptism after conversion and baptism of only adults?
I know a lot Anglicans and Methodists still have pedobaptism.. and will baptise by sprinkling, not immersion.
Food for thought no?
Named after key leaders and key principles.. got nicknamed 'Anabaptists'
They have no known human founder but adhered tenatiously to the teachings of the first New Testament churches.
Covered in the likes of the Battle for Baptist History by I.K.Cross.. The Trail of Blood by B.Carroll.. My Church by J.M. Moody.. Churches in the Valley of Piedemont.
The Waldenses being devout christians in biblically sound churches who fled to the mountains.. 'men of the valleys' facing persecution. Their isolation in those mountains allowed them to preserve the truth of the Word.
Christians in mostly biblically sound churches that were around seperate from Catholicism and before the likes of Calvin and Luther, Wesley etc..
Of course, since reformers do try to go sola scriptura.. then there are some shared beliefs from the aforementioned churches and the reformers.. hence why these churches helped the reformers.
But tell me which reformed churches have truly imbraced full immersion baptism.. no infant baptism.. and baptism after conversion and baptism of only adults?
I know a lot Anglicans and Methodists still have pedobaptism.. and will baptise by sprinkling, not immersion.
Food for thought no?