For some reason, there has been a proliferation of Reformed theology haters on this site.
Over the past few months, individuals have called Reformed theology Satanic or heretical. They claim to be authorities on Reformed theology, but I doubt their claims. For one, some of them can't even spell Calvinism, often spelling it Calvanism. Additionally, they misrepresent the Reformed position horribly.
They may have listened to a few videos by a wild-eyed Pelagian or Arminian, and are basing their alleged "understanding" on such individuals. Jesse Morrell comes to mind. He is a heretic who denies original sin, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and claims to be sinless. These are the sorts of authority figures that anti-Reformed folks often listen to. Their distortions become the spectacles by which free-willers view Reformed theology in too many cases.
And, too many of these Reformed theology critics are still sucking on the bottle themselves. One, who considers himself to be the Bible Answerman, claims that absolutely no enablement from the Holy Spirit is needed for a person to come to faith; that simply hearing the gospel message, with no enablement, results in salvation. Yet, he is constantly dispensing advice authoritatively. He doesn't even believe in original sin in the biblical sense.
Now, I respect the position of many Arminians, who have the doctrine of prevenient grace which they employ to explain how fallen mankind, dead in sins, is enabled by God to come to faith. But, claiming that unaided mankind can come to faith simply by hearing the Gospel is totally unbiblical. Ironically, the same person thinks those who come to faith have eternal security, and will be progressively sanctified without fail. Somehow the same alleged autonomous free will possessed prior to salvation is lost at salvation
The claim is made that mankind is created in the image of God (imago Dei), and that this image alone is sufficient to aid the man in coming to salvation. Mankind is made in the image of God, and understands his sinfulness, but he is a slave to sin, and cannot escape it, nor does he desire to. This is called moral inability by theologians. One study that would be useful for this person is the difference between "moral ability" and "natural ability". Moral inability is the issue; fallen mankind, no longer in a state of original righteousness, is morally unable to choose God, and nothing can change that except a specific act of grace by God. He may be naturally "able" to choose God, but he is morally "unable" to choose God. One of the first attacks a Pelagian makes upon sound soteriology is denying moral inability.
We know the biblical teaching that mankind is dead in sins, and that they are SLAVES to sin prior to salvation. I have NO IDEA how anyone could hold the position that an individual in such a state can respond to the Gospel message without divine enabling. God opened the mind of Lydia to respond to the gospel message. To claim that one simply hears the Gospel message and responds to it without divine enablement is laughable.
Does mankind have any degree of free will? Yes. He has free will constrained by his nature. A man with a fallen nature makes free will decisions under the constraints of that nature. And, Romans 3 is clear in teaching that NO ONE SEEKS GOD in this state of mind. NO ONE. Can you read, or what?
Such individuals are like a fish in a pond. They can swim around in the pond all they want, but they aren't free to live on land. Such is the state of fallen man. They don't have autonomous free will. There is no such thing. Scripture teaches that we are either slaves of unrighteousness, or slaves to righteousness. Period. And, it is equally clear in teaching that salvation is God's work, and requires DELIVERANCE. Mankind is helpless in his fallen state.
In their attempts to make salvation all about men, free-willers go to extraordinary lengths to deny the grace that is needed to free mankind from his enslavery to sin.
Well, for those who continue to claim that Reformed theology is Satanic or heretical, I will level an equal charge to them. Satan's focus is all about self, and denying the glory that is due to God. This is exactly what autonomous free-willers are trying to do, by focusing on THEMSELVES and THEIR DECISION. ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME. This is the essence of the autonomous free-willer's theology. Free willers are idolaters who worship on the altar of "ME". I don't think this is too exteme. So, continue giving you and your decision the glory due to God.
Some have said, if Reformed theology is true, then God isn't love. The proposal that God chooses for salvation is very distasteful to the autonomous free-willer's mind. However, it is taught in Scripture clearly. Their work-around is that God chooses those who he foresaw would choose him. In essence, their work-around is that they deny God chooses, and remove his sovereignty from salvation. As I've noted in other posts, though, the Reformed view of foreknowledge as God fore-loving the individual is perfectly coherent, and it doesn't deny that God chooses individuals for salvation like Scripture teaches. I don't have to ignore the 60+ Scriptures that teach God chooses, elects, predestines to salvation, and that he works all things to his purpose. We serve a Sovereign Lord.
If someone finds that distasteful from a human perspective, too bad. The vast majority of them believe God is going to eternally torment those who are lost. Some of those individuals who are going to be eternally tormented were individuals who fed and clothed them, or took care of them in some way. Do they judge God's decision to send those individuals to eternal punishment as unfair? No, everyone deserves eternal punishment, and if God saves some of them, then this salvation is a matter of pure grace extended to individuals who deserved eternal punishment. Therefore, if they are going to sit in judgement of God concerning unconditional election of some to salvation, then maybe they should start judging God on the issue of eternal punishment, especially the duration of it. Is it fair for God to eternally torment garden-variety sinners who really didn't cause much misery to others while on earth? The answer is yes, because ALL deserve eternal punishment, including those he saves.
The main point is that it is NOT in the job description of any human to judge God and his actions regardless of how distasteful we find them. And the main argument of those who criticize Reformed theology is, if it is true, then God is not love. I could make the same claim concerning eternal punishment; that God is not love if He eternally torments a garden-variety sinner.
There are individuals who believe in annihilationism who would deny that God eternally torments anyone. I have been an annihilationist in the past, and I think it could still be true, but I find solid verses that teach eternal torment as well. But, the point is still the same. I do not sit in judgment of God concerning anything, and I simply accept what Scripture says.
It should also be pointed out that regardless if Reformed theology is correct or not, the exact same number of people will be saved under either belief system. Reformed people simply have another REASON why those people were saved, that is more coherent with Scripture. Those individuals are saved because of GRACE, or unmerited favor. There is nothing in them, including their personal CHOICE, that merits their salvation. There is nothing virtuous about them that causes God to save them.
On the other hand, the autonomous free-willer has reason to boast. He made the right decision, and the guy who was lost did not. Those are grounds for boasting. That guy deserved his fate, and I did not. So, salvation is not about grace anymore.
Reformed people are much more graceful as a result. I don't see hateful street-preachers of the Reformed persuasion, but the more the person is into autonomous free-will, the more hateful the tendency tends to be amongst the street preacher types. Pelagians, on the far end of the spectrum in the autonomous free-will discussion, love to accuse bystanders of being nasty sinners.
Anyways, I'll stick with Reformed theology. Call it Satanic or heretical. I don't care. I'm not some bottle-sucking Christian still in diapers who is offended by what others think of me, especially since I know some of them hold odd doctrines and weird conspiracy theories.
As a reminder, this isn't particularly directed to Arminians, who explain our differences in terms of prevenient grace. I consider prevenient grace to be scotch-tape theology, but at least it's somewhat coherent. You aren't claiming that divine grace isn't needed to come to faith. Those who claim that are utterly washed up, and dishonoring God in their claims. It is basically a Pelagian view, although in the particular case I mentioned above, the person seems to agree with justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness.
Have a good day, and soli Deo Gloria.
Over the past few months, individuals have called Reformed theology Satanic or heretical. They claim to be authorities on Reformed theology, but I doubt their claims. For one, some of them can't even spell Calvinism, often spelling it Calvanism. Additionally, they misrepresent the Reformed position horribly.
They may have listened to a few videos by a wild-eyed Pelagian or Arminian, and are basing their alleged "understanding" on such individuals. Jesse Morrell comes to mind. He is a heretic who denies original sin, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and claims to be sinless. These are the sorts of authority figures that anti-Reformed folks often listen to. Their distortions become the spectacles by which free-willers view Reformed theology in too many cases.
And, too many of these Reformed theology critics are still sucking on the bottle themselves. One, who considers himself to be the Bible Answerman, claims that absolutely no enablement from the Holy Spirit is needed for a person to come to faith; that simply hearing the gospel message, with no enablement, results in salvation. Yet, he is constantly dispensing advice authoritatively. He doesn't even believe in original sin in the biblical sense.
Now, I respect the position of many Arminians, who have the doctrine of prevenient grace which they employ to explain how fallen mankind, dead in sins, is enabled by God to come to faith. But, claiming that unaided mankind can come to faith simply by hearing the Gospel is totally unbiblical. Ironically, the same person thinks those who come to faith have eternal security, and will be progressively sanctified without fail. Somehow the same alleged autonomous free will possessed prior to salvation is lost at salvation
The claim is made that mankind is created in the image of God (imago Dei), and that this image alone is sufficient to aid the man in coming to salvation. Mankind is made in the image of God, and understands his sinfulness, but he is a slave to sin, and cannot escape it, nor does he desire to. This is called moral inability by theologians. One study that would be useful for this person is the difference between "moral ability" and "natural ability". Moral inability is the issue; fallen mankind, no longer in a state of original righteousness, is morally unable to choose God, and nothing can change that except a specific act of grace by God. He may be naturally "able" to choose God, but he is morally "unable" to choose God. One of the first attacks a Pelagian makes upon sound soteriology is denying moral inability.
We know the biblical teaching that mankind is dead in sins, and that they are SLAVES to sin prior to salvation. I have NO IDEA how anyone could hold the position that an individual in such a state can respond to the Gospel message without divine enabling. God opened the mind of Lydia to respond to the gospel message. To claim that one simply hears the Gospel message and responds to it without divine enablement is laughable.
Does mankind have any degree of free will? Yes. He has free will constrained by his nature. A man with a fallen nature makes free will decisions under the constraints of that nature. And, Romans 3 is clear in teaching that NO ONE SEEKS GOD in this state of mind. NO ONE. Can you read, or what?
Such individuals are like a fish in a pond. They can swim around in the pond all they want, but they aren't free to live on land. Such is the state of fallen man. They don't have autonomous free will. There is no such thing. Scripture teaches that we are either slaves of unrighteousness, or slaves to righteousness. Period. And, it is equally clear in teaching that salvation is God's work, and requires DELIVERANCE. Mankind is helpless in his fallen state.
In their attempts to make salvation all about men, free-willers go to extraordinary lengths to deny the grace that is needed to free mankind from his enslavery to sin.
Well, for those who continue to claim that Reformed theology is Satanic or heretical, I will level an equal charge to them. Satan's focus is all about self, and denying the glory that is due to God. This is exactly what autonomous free-willers are trying to do, by focusing on THEMSELVES and THEIR DECISION. ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME. This is the essence of the autonomous free-willer's theology. Free willers are idolaters who worship on the altar of "ME". I don't think this is too exteme. So, continue giving you and your decision the glory due to God.
Some have said, if Reformed theology is true, then God isn't love. The proposal that God chooses for salvation is very distasteful to the autonomous free-willer's mind. However, it is taught in Scripture clearly. Their work-around is that God chooses those who he foresaw would choose him. In essence, their work-around is that they deny God chooses, and remove his sovereignty from salvation. As I've noted in other posts, though, the Reformed view of foreknowledge as God fore-loving the individual is perfectly coherent, and it doesn't deny that God chooses individuals for salvation like Scripture teaches. I don't have to ignore the 60+ Scriptures that teach God chooses, elects, predestines to salvation, and that he works all things to his purpose. We serve a Sovereign Lord.
If someone finds that distasteful from a human perspective, too bad. The vast majority of them believe God is going to eternally torment those who are lost. Some of those individuals who are going to be eternally tormented were individuals who fed and clothed them, or took care of them in some way. Do they judge God's decision to send those individuals to eternal punishment as unfair? No, everyone deserves eternal punishment, and if God saves some of them, then this salvation is a matter of pure grace extended to individuals who deserved eternal punishment. Therefore, if they are going to sit in judgement of God concerning unconditional election of some to salvation, then maybe they should start judging God on the issue of eternal punishment, especially the duration of it. Is it fair for God to eternally torment garden-variety sinners who really didn't cause much misery to others while on earth? The answer is yes, because ALL deserve eternal punishment, including those he saves.
The main point is that it is NOT in the job description of any human to judge God and his actions regardless of how distasteful we find them. And the main argument of those who criticize Reformed theology is, if it is true, then God is not love. I could make the same claim concerning eternal punishment; that God is not love if He eternally torments a garden-variety sinner.
There are individuals who believe in annihilationism who would deny that God eternally torments anyone. I have been an annihilationist in the past, and I think it could still be true, but I find solid verses that teach eternal torment as well. But, the point is still the same. I do not sit in judgment of God concerning anything, and I simply accept what Scripture says.
It should also be pointed out that regardless if Reformed theology is correct or not, the exact same number of people will be saved under either belief system. Reformed people simply have another REASON why those people were saved, that is more coherent with Scripture. Those individuals are saved because of GRACE, or unmerited favor. There is nothing in them, including their personal CHOICE, that merits their salvation. There is nothing virtuous about them that causes God to save them.
On the other hand, the autonomous free-willer has reason to boast. He made the right decision, and the guy who was lost did not. Those are grounds for boasting. That guy deserved his fate, and I did not. So, salvation is not about grace anymore.
Reformed people are much more graceful as a result. I don't see hateful street-preachers of the Reformed persuasion, but the more the person is into autonomous free-will, the more hateful the tendency tends to be amongst the street preacher types. Pelagians, on the far end of the spectrum in the autonomous free-will discussion, love to accuse bystanders of being nasty sinners.
Anyways, I'll stick with Reformed theology. Call it Satanic or heretical. I don't care. I'm not some bottle-sucking Christian still in diapers who is offended by what others think of me, especially since I know some of them hold odd doctrines and weird conspiracy theories.
As a reminder, this isn't particularly directed to Arminians, who explain our differences in terms of prevenient grace. I consider prevenient grace to be scotch-tape theology, but at least it's somewhat coherent. You aren't claiming that divine grace isn't needed to come to faith. Those who claim that are utterly washed up, and dishonoring God in their claims. It is basically a Pelagian view, although in the particular case I mentioned above, the person seems to agree with justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness.
Have a good day, and soli Deo Gloria.
Last edited:
