My questions as I study Reformed Theology

[Winman]

I have been in some serious study of Reformed Theology/Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace for quite some time now. I do have some questions and thoughts and I would appreciate feedback.

1. Romans 9:22 says, "And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction?" (Holman Christian Standard Bible) Is there anyway the, "What if" is not talking about something He actually does, but is just making an example of His power?

2. Has anyone on here ever thought that God may only draw those who He knew would accept, meaning all do not get drawn. I ask because when God drew me to repent I do not feel like I could have refused and if God drew everyone the way He drew me, you would have all kinds of lost people saying, "Man, God tried to get me yesterday at church, but I fought Him off, I would not let Him get me."

3. I am almost scared to fully embrace Reformed Theology, because if it is not true, then I am saying that God does not attempt to save all, when He actually does. Again, that's if Reformed Theology is not true.

4. I also struggle with the "world" and "all' verses. I know Reformed theologians teach these words does not mean every, head for head, but I sometimes struggle with the idea that they do not mean every person, head for head, understanding that somtimes they do not, but I struggle to think they do not when the verse(s) are talking about salvation.

I love studying Reformed Theology. I think it's fascinating, but I am struggling to go all the way. What do you guys think?

You should be scared of Reformed Theology. God cannot lie, and God is not misleading. And God is no dummy, he knows how to say what he really means. When the scriptures say:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

When God says world, he truly means the whole world, and when he says whosoever, he really means whosoever.

Look, when folks tell you that when God says "world", or "whosoever", or "all men" he was only speaking of a few elect, use your common sense. Is God able to express himself without making misleading statements?

If Jesus died for only a few persons, couldn't God have simply said Jesus died for only a few persons? I mean, how difficult is that? I just said it, and I am just a normal man.

I wouldn't follow Reformed Theology because it is fascinating. Mormonism is fascinating, they believe you become a god and populate galaxies in space. You can have multiple wives. That is pretty fascinating, but not a good reason to be a Mormon.

 

[Havensdad]

You should be scared of Reformed Theology. God cannot lie, and God is not misleading. And God is no dummy, he knows how to say what he really means. When the scriptures say:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

When God says world, he truly means the whole world, and when he says whosoever, he really means whosoever.

Look, when folks tell you that when God says "world", or "whosoever", or "all men" he was only speaking of a few elect, use your common sense. Is God able to express himself without making misleading statements?

If Jesus died for only a few persons, couldn't God have simply said Jesus died for only a few persons? I mean, how difficult is that? I just said it, and I am just a normal man.

I wouldn't follow Reformed Theology because it is fascinating. Mormonism is fascinating, they believe you become a god and populate galaxies in space. You can have multiple wives. That is pretty fascinating, but not a good reason to be a Mormon.

Of course, coming from a person who thinks their opinion is king of the universe, and other Godly teacher's have nothing to add...:tonofbricks:

 

[Winman]

Of course, coming from a person who thinks their opinion is king of the universe, and other Godly teacher's have nothing to add...:tonofbricks:

Those who live in glass houses should not post pictures of themselves in their avatars. You seem quite enamored with yourself, you hardly have room to criticize me for vanity. I love the "thinker" pose.

 

[The Archangel]

You should be scared of Reformed Theology. God cannot lie, and God is not misleading. And God is no dummy, he knows how to say what he really means. When the scriptures say:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

When God says world, he truly means the whole world, and when he says whosoever, he really means whosoever.

Look, when folks tell you that when God says "world", or "whosoever", or "all men" he was only speaking of a few elect, use your common sense. Is God able to express himself without making misleading statements?

If Jesus died for only a few persons, couldn't God have simply said Jesus died for only a few persons? I mean, how difficult is that? I just said it, and I am just a normal man.

I wouldn't follow Reformed Theology because it is fascinating. Mormonism is fascinating, they believe you become a god and populate galaxies in space. You can have multiple wives. That is pretty fascinating, but not a good reason to be a Mormon.

The translation of John 3:16 is faulty...get something better than the KJV.

"Whosoever" is actually "the one believing." It is not a wide open door as you are suggesting.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Those who live in glass houses should not post pictures of themselves in their avatars. You seem quite enamored with yourself, you hardly have room to criticize me for vanity. I love the "thinker" pose.

You're preaching "Glass houses" about avatars while you have a picture of Jesus as yours? Holy Mackerel!

 

[Iconoclast]

Not really. The 3 chapters taken as a whole are in regards to God's sovereing selection of Israel as His people and from which the Messiah would come through. Only believing Jews made up "true Israel".

Actually, believing jews and believing gentiles make up the true Israel.
There is one new man in Christ.Jesus is the TRUE ISRAEL and us in Him.

 

[Amy.G]

The translation of John 3:16 is faulty...get something better than the KJV.

"Whosoever" is actually "the one believing." It is not a wide open door as you are suggesting.

The Archangel

I could not find a translation that is worded "the one believing". This is the closest I could find, but still doesn't word it that way.

YNG - Jhn 3:16 -
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.


Are you going to tell us that all translations are wrong and you are right?

 

[glfredrick]

You should be scared of Reformed Theology. God cannot lie, and God is not misleading. And God is no dummy, he knows how to say what he really means. When the scriptures say:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

When God says world, he truly means the whole world, and when he says whosoever, he really means whosoever.

Who, exactly, is the subject of that sentence, "God" or "whosoever"? Understanding that may shed some light on what is actually being said in that passage.

If you are "scared" of Reformed Theology, then you are also "scared" of John Piper, Spurgeon, Augustine, John Calvin (and virtually every theologian before him, as Arminian theology did not exist until around AD 1600!), The Pilgrim Fathers, the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, John MacArthur, John Gill, John Bunyan, and a host of other influential persons in the Christian world. To be "scared" of any theology makes no sense at all. Read, study, toss out if not biblical. Persons who want to make the study of any theology a "scare" factor are trying to unduly influence decisions without every really knowing what they are talking about. That is the essence of fundamentalism (not the fundamentals, which is another thing entirely).

 

[Nicholas25]

Who, exactly, is the subject of that sentence, "God" or "whosoever"? Understanding that may shed some light on what is actually being said in that passage.

If you are "scared" of Reformed Theology, then you are also "scared" of John Piper, Spurgeon, Augustine, John Calvin (and virtually every theologian before him, as Arminian theology did not exist until around AD 1600!), The Pilgrim Fathers, the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, John MacArthur, John Gill, John Bunyan, and a host of other influential persons in the Christian world. To be "scared" of any theology makes no sense at all. Read, study, toss out if not biblical. Persons who want to make the study of any theology a "scare" factor are trying to unduly influence decisions without every really knowing what they are talking about. That is the essence of fundamentalism (not the fundamentals, which is another thing entirely).

Message boards, message boards...... I said I was scared of it as a figure of speech, as officially becoming "Reformed" would be a big step. Changing theologies in some cases it a bigger step than changing churches.

 

[glfredrick]

Message boards, message boards...... I said I was scared of it as a figure of speech, as officially becoming "Reformed" would be a big step. Changing theologies in some cases it a bigger step than changing churches.

True that... But the change does not have to be wholesale. Check it out. Adapt. Grow.

One wise professor once told me, that in the study of theology and theological books to, "chew the meat and spit out the bones." Be a Berean, check the Scriptures, but if you are actually investigating, make sure you check the Scriptures from both perspectives, not just from one, or you may totally miss out on the other perspective.

In my own case, I knew that there was a place for free will and a place for the sovereignty of God. I simply needed to chose a side and settle in. I figured that if i had to err, God's side would be the preferred position. I would rather that God be right and every man a liar than the other way around, so I settled into an Infralapsarian Calvinism and there I shall remain. I prefer God's utter sovereignty to my own decision making process.

I guess what scares so many people is that they may just be "religious" having come to God on their own terms, and may not be born again according to the Scriptures, which is an act that only God can do. I've sure read enough testimonies of persons who were in that boat to understand that it can and does happen. The problem is that people come to realize that they are doomed and there is nothing at all THEY can do about it. That is a weird place to be -- where you may be on your face before Holy God, begging Him to grant you salvation, but that is exactly where I see the Scriptures leading us -- and if you get to that place, God is already at work!

 

[The Archangel]

I could not find a translation that is worded "the one believing". This is the closest I could find, but still doesn't word it that way.

YNG - Jhn 3:16 -
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.


Are you going to tell us that all translations are wrong and you are right?

No...and yes. I think most translators since the KJV were gutless when translating this verse. They paid too much homage to the KJV (because this is a "beloved" verse) and didn't correct its error or update the language into a much more understandable form.

But, "whosoever" is actually a participle in Greek. Actually the phrase is πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων which, literally, is "all the believing ones."

The Archangel

 

[michael-acts17:11]

I have the view that the free will of man & the sovereignty of God are coequal. It is similar to the question, "is Jesus a man or is He God"? YES! We are trying to wrap our finite minds around something that may be impossible to fully comprehend on this "side" of eternity. I have free will to accept or to reject Christ; yet God is sovereign over all of creation. Do I understand this concept? no. Do I accept it? yes.

 

[Luke2427]

I have the view that the free will of man & the sovereignty of God are coequal. It is similar to the question, "is Jesus a man or is He God"? YES! We are trying to wrap our finite minds around something that may be impossible to fully comprehend on this "side" of eternity. I have free will to accept or to reject Christ; yet God is sovereign over all of creation. Do I understand this concept? no. Do I accept it? yes.

The problem, Michael, is that the Bible does TEACH that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. The Bible does NOT teach that sinful men have a free will.

Every time folks see the word "choose" the think that implies free will. It does not.

Will is bound to desire. Desire is shaped by external forces.

I like calf liver and gravy over rice. Do you?

Probably not- most people don't.

I do not like onions. Do you?

You probably eat them on your burger. Most folks do.

Now if I sat before you identical proportions of calf liver and a Krystal cheeseburger and said, "Choose", you would probably CHOOSE the Krystal burger.

Not me. Those things are covered in diced onions.

Did you make a choice? Yes. Was your will to choose completely free with no inclinations to the one or the other? Absolutely not. If you are like most folks I know your will was bound to choose the burger.

Men always choose what they most want. If you were to choose the stuff you did not like it would be because you wanted to make a point- you still would be doing what you most wanted.

Why would you not choose the calf liver? Because you do not want it. Now here's the kicker- Why did you not want it?

Forces outside of you molded your wants. You did not form your taste buds- God did. You did not decide into which family you would be born- God did. You did not decide in which environment and culture you would be raised- God did.

EVERYTHING that molded your desire against calf liver was determined by God.

So is your will really free? No. God determined in eternity past that you would choose the Krystal burger.

At the same time in eternity past God determined I would choose the calf liver.

Now what Arminians do at this point, because the wheels in their mind go into over drive thinking about all the negative connotations of this truth, they abandon rational argument and dive headfirst into emotion. They stop THINKING and start FEELING.

And they say: YOU ARE SAYING THAT GOD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SIN!!!!! And in comes the word "rape"- it is kind of funny- that one ALWAYS comes up.

And then you can't reason with them anymore. Truth doesn't matter. Logic is thrown out the door.

They DON'T CARE what logic proves; they don't like the idea they feel it leads to- and they're done. It doesn't matter if the BIBLE teaches it. It doesn't matter if logic demands it. They don't care. They don't want to EVEN CONSIDER what may be true beyond this point.

Calvinists are the ones who keep thinking at this point- and they are able to go the next step and find out that God is EVEN MORE GLORIOUS than they had dreamed. They find out that God does indeed DECREE all things for the highest of purposes. They find that the Bible is jam packed with this glorious truth.

Arminians are handicapped by irrational emotionalism. They are thus left in the dark on this matter.

 

[quantumfaith]

I have the view that the free will of man & the sovereignty of God are coequal. It is similar to the question, "is Jesus a man or is He God"? YES! We are trying to wrap our finite minds around something that may be impossible to fully comprehend on this "side" of eternity. I have free will to accept or to reject Christ; yet God is sovereign over all of creation. Do I understand this concept? no. Do I accept it? yes.

Michael, that is the idea of "compatibilism". Many "reformers" and "non-reformers" both hold this position. So, in many perspectives, it is defensible.

 

[Luke2427]

Michael, that is the idea of "compatibilism". Many "reformers" and "non-reformers" both hold this position. So, in many perspectives, it is defensible.

Compatibalism does deal with what is called "free will" and determinism but "free will" still needs to be understood as only the ability to choose what you want.

Your "want" is still bound by your nature.

In that sense I am a compatablist- some would consider me to be a determinist though.

 

[quantumfaith]

Compatibalism does deal with what is called "free will" and determinism but "free will" still needs to be understood as only the ability to choose what you want.

Your "want" is still bound by your nature.

In that sense I am a compatablist- some would consider me to be a determinist though.

No Luke, free will is the ability to make a selection from any available, within the established parameters that God has designed into His creation. I could choose to eat your "beef liver over rice" if I wanted to, for no other reason than to prove a point, even though everything in my nature cries out NO, Dont eat it.

 

[Luke2427]

No Luke, free will is the ability to make a selection from any available, within the established parameters that God has designed into His creation. I could choose to eat your "beef liver over rice" if I wanted to, for no other reason than to prove a point, even though everything in my nature cries out NO, Dont eat it.

Calf liver. Beef liver is too tough.

You would still be doing what you MOST wanted to do.

You MOST wanted to prove point- a factor that has been shaped by external forces.

There is a reason why you choose what you choose. That reason is desire. You choose what you choose because of what you MOST desire.

God has left man with "free" will in the sense that he lets then choose what they most want.

I could hold a gun to your head and say, "Eat this liver or die!"

You would eat the liver as much as you hate it. But you would still be CHOOSING what you most desire. What you MOST desire is to live.

Well, what causes you to want to live? Factors outside of yourself- maybe survival instinct, fear of death, plans and dreams, etc.. but none of these things that CAUSE you to WANT to live do you control.

What DOES control the cause?

 

[glfredrick]

Compatibalism does deal with what is called "free will" and determinism but "free will" still needs to be understood as only the ability to choose what you want.

Your "want" is still bound by your nature.

In that sense I am a compatablist- some would consider me to be a determinist though.

Some would... :laugh:

 

[glfredrick]

Calf liver. Beef liver is too tough.

You would still be doing what you MOST wanted to do.

You MOST wanted to prove point- a factor that has been shaped by external forces.

There is a reason why you choose what you choose. That reason is desire. You choose what you choose because of what you MOST desire.

God has left man with "free" will in the sense that he lets then choose what they most want.

I could hold a gun to your head and say, "Eat this liver or die!"

You would eat the liver as much as you hate it. But you would still be CHOOSING what you most desire. What you MOST desire is to live.

Well, what causes you to want to live? Factors outside of yourself- maybe survival instinct, fear of death, plans and dreams, etc.. but none of these things that CAUSE you to WANT to live do you control.

What DOES control the cause?

Luke, you are somewhat on the right track with cause and effect, except that there is no direct correlation to cause and effect in virtually anything we do, think, act, etc. We do observe cause and effect in action, but the process is limited in many ways, and tracing all back to a point, even if that point is God, is virtually impossible.

A true cause and effect theology would end up with Whitehead and Hartshorn's Process Theology -- a most heretical and non-biblical "theology" (how can a theology be a theology if it is not devoted to the actual revelation of God?) which is indeed "panentheism," where God's actions are seen as a long chain of cause and effect actions.

Essentially (and I am simplifying this to an extreme) God created the world and kicked into motion a series of cause and effect actions, and ultimately God is as tied to the world as the world is tied to God, with deterministic results based on this inseparable tie. History is viewed as an ever increasing "line" with "branches" born out by the actions and reactions -- cause and effect -- of the created order (and beings) with no ultimate goal or conclusion in mind (or possible).

In traditional orthodox Christian theology, God transcends the created order and created beings, and is truly capable of free will interactions with His creation, including the beings which He has created.

So, while cause and effect play a role -- we see this by observation -- we must also limit the effects of cause and effect because God will ultimately exercise His sovereign dominion to bring about His divine purpose(s) as He wills.

In a sense, to eliminate determinism (which is not an orthodox descriptor of God) we must see that God wills for His people to have certain exercise of their individual wills, but they are never given total control over the effects of that exercise. Some of this is explained by "position." We are either dead in our sin and trespasses, which limits our exercise of free will in that direction (we cannot "do" or "will" salvific acts, but are morally culpable for our sin(s) whether intentional or unintentional, committed or contemplated, commission or omission) and once indwelt by The Holy Spirit in the act of salvation, given a will to bow before our Lord and King, and again, our actions leave us culpable.

We cannot will to do what God will not allow, and if we could, we would essentially become god ourselves, but we know full well that God will not tolerate another god, and so we find that direction to be one of ultimate peril. We can will to do what it is that God wills, and so we bend our wills to His own, and agree with God that God is right, and that we are at His mercy for even thinking otherwise.

Note that I am NOT saying that you are headed toward Process Theology. Not in any way. Just that your line of reasoning ends up there if pressed forward to a conclusion.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, you are somewhat on the right track with cause and effect, except that there is no direct correlation to cause and effect in virtually anything we do, think, act, etc. We do observe cause and effect in action, but the process is limited in many ways, and tracing all back to a point, even if that point is God, is virtually impossible.

A true cause and effect theology would end up with Whitehead and Hartshorn's Process Theology -- a most heretical and non-biblical "theology" (how can a theology be a theology if it is not devoted to the actual revelation of God?) which is indeed "panentheism," where God's actions are seen as a long chain of cause and effect actions.

Essentially (and I am simplifying this to an extreme) God created the world and kicked into motion a series of cause and effect actions, and ultimately God is as tied to the world as the world is tied to God, with deterministic results based on this inseparable tie. History is viewed as an ever increasing "line" with "branches" born out by the actions and reactions -- cause and effect -- of the created order (and beings) with no ultimate goal or conclusion in mind (or possible).

In traditional orthodox Christian theology, God transcends the created order and created beings, and is truly capable of free will interactions with His creation, including the beings which He has created.

So, while cause and effect play a role -- we see this by observation -- we must also limit the effects of cause and effect because God will ultimately exercise His sovereign dominion to bring about His divine purpose(s) as He wills.

In a sense, to eliminate determinism (which is not an orthodox descriptor of God) we must see that God wills for His people to have certain exercise of their individual wills, but they are never given total control over the effects of that exercise. Some of this is explained by "position." We are either dead in our sin and trespasses, which limits our exercise of free will in that direction (we cannot "do" or "will" salvific acts, but are morally culpable for our sin(s) whether intentional or unintentional, committed or contemplated, commission or omission) and once indwelt by The Holy Spirit in the act of salvation, given a will to bow before our Lord and King, and again, our actions leave us culpable.

We cannot will to do what God will not allow, and if we could, we would essentially become god ourselves, but we know full well that God will not tolerate another god, and so we find that direction to be one of ultimate peril. We can will to do what it is that God wills, and so we bend our wills to His own, and agree with God that God is right, and that we are at His mercy for even thinking otherwise.

Note that I am NOT saying that you are headed toward Process Theology. Not in any way. Just that your line of reasoning ends up there if pressed forward to a conclusion.

I disagree. I do not think what I am saying leads to that at all whether pressed or no.

God is the ultimate cause of all things.

Of him and through him and to him are all things.

That's all that it leads to pressed or otherwise.

The last thing it does is deny omnipotence as Process Theology does.

I am a supralapsarian compatabalist. I believe man is perfectly free to do what he wants to do- but he wants are ultimately caused by God.

I do not believe that God built the universe and kicked it into motion and left it to its own consequences.

I believe that in him we live and move and have our being and that by him all things CURRENTLY consist.

All the calf liver illustration LOGICALLY leads to is that there is a CAUSE for every decision and all causes are traced ultimately back to God.

That does not deny free will if free will is defined properly as the mind choosing and the individual being free to do what he wants.